The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Leonitus_Trujillo
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Capital punishment should be illegal, and abortion rights should be respected.

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: 12/28/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,923 times Debate No: 1082
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (8)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

I have seen a lot of death penalty and abortion arguments on this website, and I would like to cut to the meat of the matter here. Pro-lifers are always discussing innocence as the factor in this matter, and how innocent babies should not be killed but guilty murderors can be killed without worry. Innocence is not actually the issue here though. First of all, you are not the judge of innocence. Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Jesus is trying to say here that you cannot be the judge of someone else's innocence, for you yourself are a sinner by default. Second of all, everyone knows that a certain number of executed prisoners are found to be not guilty of the crime they were executed for after the fact. This is a grave injustice that cannot continue.

You pro-lifers who are for the death penalty are walking a very fine line, and I think your pro-life arguments would be a lot stronger if you would stop acting like you can morally judge a person to be fit to die. I think Jesus would be ashamed of you for this, and why you can't see that I just can't understand. How can you call yourselves Christians, as if you are following Jesus's lead, and support death by electrocution! I guess when your religion has perpetuated 2000 years of murder, crusades, persecution, and oppression you can get that mixed up. Personally I'm a lot more worried about Christians than I am about Islamists, and I think that if it weren't for our own eccentric religions here at home then Islamists wouldn't consider us such a target.

Now here is my argument in support of abortion. A fetus is a human being, in all respects. Granted. Let's stop arguing about that now, OK? But what a fetus is NOT, is a PERSON. Personhood is not easy to define, but we have to accept the fact that while all human beings are life forms, not all life forms are people. A sperm and an egg are not people, and I don't see why a very young fetus is any more of a person than sperm and eggs. Christians will say that a soul is created at conception, which ends that argument, but there is no scientific evidence that a soul exists. It is simply superstition, and cannot be taken seriously in debate. Personhood is the defining element that seperates man from beast, and seperates what can be possibly justly put to death and what can never be justly put to death. The hard part of my argument is finding that point in which a fetus becomes a baby, or when a human being becomes a person, in other words. Birth should be viewed as the absolute latest when this happens, and to be on the safe side, it should be earlier. Perhaps when the first brain activity occurs, or after a few months has elapsed in the womb. Ideally, I think a woman should have at least a few weeks, when the developing embryo is still just a very minute bundle of cells, to make a responsible choice of abortion. I don't personally believe that late abortion is justified, because the lines are too fuzzy concerning personhood late in the pregnancy, when the fetus is producing brain activity and the like.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

Well let me congratulate you on your ability to take quotes from the bible out of context and use it to support your argument, that is a very important skill that all atheist must master. You need to know the story behind "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
It is John 8:7, and the Pharisee's who want to try and harm Jesus , have tricked a desperate woman to commit adultery. The Pharisee's were going to stone the woman that they tricked to commit adultery , and then have Jesus seem in compassionate by consenting to her death. Now Jesus is god and he know exactly what was going on. The question is was Jesus going to let that Pharisee's win, was he going to allow that woman to die, all because of him? No! so he saves her from the Pharisee's. You can't use that to claim that we shouldn't judge anybody, your trying to use Jesus as a trap against Christianity, that's just as bad as the corrupt pharisee's.
Jesus never said that a court of law cannot Judge people, Jesus many times affirmed the law, he asked people to abide by their law, he said subject yourselves before the law of your land. There is a difference between me judging you as a person, and a court of law judging you as a criminal.
No one is talking about morally judging a person when we're talking about pro-life and the death penalty. We're talking about the due process of law being fulfilled and the role of the law in protecting our rights that have been laid out before us in the Constitution and the ideals that has been embodied in this country from its creation as the Declaration of Independence.
And I commend you on your jab against Christianity saying that we have perpetuated 2000 years of murder. But I don't see how it is consistent with your argument. Your saying that as Christians we can't support the death penalty, but we should anyways because we have always been murderers. You have to fix your logic there.
Christianity has never caused a single murder. What it has done is served as an excuse for murder. People in the past have carried a cross into battle and figured that it not only absolved them from any wrong but made their actions just. Christianity never perpetuated murder, the greed of people have always been the driving force behind murder, and it always will be. Christianity has just been a cloak that the Greedy people have used in the past. Christianity hasn't made the world its victim, the world has made Christianity its victim by distorting it dragging through the floor and implicating its name in millions of murders.
But there is a difference between a righteous death and a murder.
The American Heritage Dictionary calls murder:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice
an individual taking it upon herself to judge another individual worth, and proceeding to terminate that individuals life on that judgment is murder, and its called abortion.
However an adjudication where all of us as a body of citizens under a law put a person to death , after a through trial that has been carried out with due-process, that is not murder, that is justice.
There is a difference and people who failed to recognize that make a dire mistake. We as Christians aren't trying to judge a woman as a bad person. We are just fighting to stop personal judgment of other people. We want the power to take an individual life away to go back to being solely in the hands of a jury of twelve peers and only after a proper and through trial under a fair legal system.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

I take the bible out of context? Well let me begin by saying that I have found three main ways that Christians are able to sidestep logic and frustrate non-christians who attempt to quote scripture and use the bible against them.

1) "You are not a Christian, therefore you do not understand the bible". I have been told in the past that, since I have not given myself up to Jesus and become possessed by the holy spirit, that I cannot effectively interpret the Bible.

2) "You are offending me, and let's keep the Bible out of the discourse of our argument". I have another debate in which my opponent uses this "logic", and simply drops my arguments like so much conjecture. Please refer to my debate titled "The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure".

3) "You are taking the Bible out of context", or "You cannot take the Bible literally". Here is Leonitus's strategy. The Christian will often follow this with "Jesus talks of a monster with one thousand heads as well... You don't really assume that he is being literal, do you? Huckabee uses this argument, and I wish I could get on the stage with that &^$#%*$* just for five minutes....

All of these tactics are cheap, illogical, and lower than what a used car-salesman would use to sell you a lemon. The lemon in this case is prejudice Christian values, which don't survive very long in a logical debate.

I want to interject at this point that I think that Jesus Christ was the greatest philosopher of all times, as well as the greatest person who has ever lived. My problem is with the people who use his name to assert a bunch of principles that I believe he would have been very disappointed with. I believe that if Jesus was alive today, he would refute Christianity as a whole and he would end up having to carry the cross again, but it would be the Christians this time filling the role of the Romans.

Now back to your argument Leonitus. So, Jesus makes an absolutely golden maxim here "let he who is without sin throw the first stone", which is so eloquently logical and carries with it such a socially valuable application that it would take a master philosopher like Jesus to postulate it, and you are going to say that Jesus is just telling a line from a story? He doesn't actually mean that you shouldn't cast judgement on someone else, because you are human and flawed as well? Come on man, don't try to twist Jesus's words. Jesus gives this logic to humanity as a gift, and by cheapening it you are doing him an injustice.

Your second argument, that Jesus says to abide by the law, hardly can be used to say that Jesus frowns down on any attempt to change a law that is unjust. Where are you going with this argument?

Next, you say that "No one is talking about morally judging a person when we're talking about pro-life and the death penalty". Well I'm sorry, but you must not be reading these debates on this website. Pull up one of them and read it, and all you will be reading is about innocent babies being killed by abortion, and guilty criminals deserving capital punishment. I don't see how any of you can even support your arguments without bringing it up...

I am not saying that Christians are inherently murderors. But I think that when your character is thoroughly saturated with superstitious Christian beliefs, then you start to lose the logical foundation to make some decisions on policy, like whether or not you should put a man to death. No one should ever come to the conclusion that you should kill another person, unless there is an imminent threat to another person involved. Once a murderor is caught, we can lock him up indefinitely. People who would otherwise be issued capital punishment are never going to have their prison sentences mature, and thus are never going to be able to threaten innocent civilians outside of prison.

Now you call abortion murder. Yes, if your definition of murder is "killing another human being". Personally, I don't care if you find a dictionary to support that definition, because I will refute it. Murder, to me, is defined in this way: Knowingly and intentionally ending the life of another person, without the other person being in the position to harm another person. Now the argument is about personhood, if you would like to address it. I don't consider sperm, eggs, and embryos people. I consider a baby a person, but I think that there is a short while after conception where a responsible decision to abort can be made without ending the life of a person. A month or two into pregnancy, when there is brain activity and the like, I think that abortion is not a responsible decision and I question the morality of abortions that are performed this late.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

uhmm….I'm sorry that taking something out of context to support your argument is wrong.

uhm…I'm sorry that we don't like it when people who don't bother to study what they refuted act like professionals. I mean I wouldn't see why a scientist would get mad if I approached a scientist with 3 sentences of a textbook and used it to disprove science. I mean your completely right, asking someone to study what he opposes, not just what he supports is completely illogical, why the heck should anybody reject something after finishing an objective study? No the answer is to Reject before! Then you can always flip through it to find out ways to support what you support.

I'm sorry that the Christians that go to [and study for] AND school, know the bible and the science books, but I'm sorry that it doesn't work the same way for most atheist.

But hey you're the one offended I'm not, I'm use to anti-Christians ranting and raving and perfecting their craft of taking the bible out of context and using against us. Really I like it when they do it, because they make a neat little trap for themselves every time, only a novice Christian would fail to see how to capitalize on that trap and get offended. Ok I shouldn't be so mean, maybe its just someone not into apologetics , or maybe the hateful words spoken against us finally got to them even though we're suppose to be the hateful ones.

Now that I have addressed your bickering I will get onto serious matters and the subject.

Sure I agree that if Jesus came today he would be disgusted with a lot of things Christians have done and are doing for example, the crusades, the Spanish inquisition , the Russian purge. All done by Christians all very hateful 2/3 using the Christian banner. But I don't agree that if Jesus came today he would advocate the destruction of our legal system.

By saying that no one can judge anyone you are putting a barrier from anybody to be tried in a court of law, and sentenced to any punishment.

I did say and I do say that Jesus stands by the Jewish laws and the laws of our country. Besides laughing at my point I don't think you said anything to refute Luke 16:17

Luke 16:16-17
17 (Jesus) "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. "
NIV
or Mathew 5:17

Matt 5:17-18

17 (Jesus)"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

NIV

You think that Jesus is the greatest philosopher of all time than you should at least put him on par with the enlightenment thinkers that recognized justice and the execution of justice is essential in every stable society. The enlightenment thinkers that took part in the creation of our nation recognized that government derive their just powers from the men in order to protect the rights of society. And therefore with the powers that the government have the need to protect the rights of every individual , the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PERSUITE OF HAPPINESS. Those women who made the decision to have consensual sex acknowledge the risks involved acknowledged that there were ways to effectively eliminate those whisk, and proceeded to have intercourse. She was able to pursuit her happiness. And now the individual that will come fourth because of that decision whether good or bad has the same rights to pursuit, happiness, liberty and above all life, should be entitle the same rights that she has.

But if you are to say that if that baby were to be born it would take away her right to happiness and therefore the government should legalize the abortion your in the wrong. Because the government is given powers to take rights away in order to ensure certain essential rights of the whole. The government takes the right to kill another person away in order to protect that right of the other person to live. It's way murder is a crime, and it's why abortion should be illegal.

The way the government goes about protecting the rights of us as an individual I think is fair. The goal is not only to stop that person from committing another crime- otherwise we would it a detention system; but also to bring about Justice which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as : "The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law." Justice to administer to that person a treatment that he deserves because of the crime he committed. Its why ‘it' is called a Justice system.

I think you are incorrect when you say that the duty of the law stops when we ensure the person is locked up and can never commit that crime again. The family doesn't receive the equitable Justice. That person maliciously took the life of their loved one, infant, child, son, mother-Father. Our reaction to that once they have been tried by a court of law, and it has been determined through a thorough process of adjudication concluding with a verdict of a jury of twelve peers. Our reaction to that must be to administer justice, to give him the treatment that is congruent with the crime committed, Justice is not just for the convict , but for the family, for the society- for all of us as citizens under a common law.
There is a place in our society for the death penalty, it is our reserved response, or reserved prescription for justice for when the history of an individual has taken such an adverse path to such lengths that it has proceeded to terminate the life of another individual.

Pro-life isn't a modern day decision. pro-life is the stance our founding fathers took when they were framing the constitution, pro-life is the stance that the second continental congress took when they were ratified the declaration of independence as the document that would propel this land forward as an independent nation, the document that would serve as the foundation of the ideals of a new society. I reject to believe that they only sought to protect the life of those who could advocate for their own life. I reject to believe that they felt entitled to administer Justice only for those who could ask of it for themselves. I think our founding fathers wanted Life and Liberty for everyone , even those who relied on other people to fight for that Liberty. That is something that this country proved to stand by when it finally brought down slavery, and I think that is something that this country will continue to stand by, or laws or justice and our liberty- for everyone.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

Actually I think a scientist wouldn't get mad if you tried disproving science with a few lines out of a textbook. Science is absolutely irrefutable, because it produces results that can be used to predict future events with exactitude. I know you think you are doing scientists a favor by not proving them wrong, but you actually wouldn't succeed at all if you tried.

I never said Jesus would advocate the destruction of our legal system.

Judgement is natural, and an every-day occurance. But no man has the authority to judge a person fit to die. You are stretching my argument to mean "no person is able to judge any other person in any way". I perhaps was not clear enough on my position. Jesus said "let he who is without sin, throw the first stone". When someone is stoning someone, they are attempting to kill them. The judgement that I am discussing here, which I firmly believe does not belong to mankind, is the judgement of who gets to live and who gets to die. I think our legal system should be denied the right to judge death to a person. Since an embryo is not a person, I would claim that this "right to personhood" for an embryo would not set in until it has reached a certain point in its development.

Your argument against newly-pregnant women's rights is what we call a "slippery slope". So if a couple has sex, then as soon as they are done, there is ANOTHER person in the room already. First of all, that is just nonsensical. Second of all, we cannot hold women responsible in this way. Consider what laws politicians would pass if people like you got their way. The first move is getting a fetus/embryo officially recognized as a person. This is where the slippery slope comes into play: how can we defend this new person's rights? They are a full fledged person, right? So this embryo, the size of the average bacterium, has full constitutional rights? Let me ask you this, Leonitus. Are you going to fight to protect the rights of that woman, against people like you, that are going to hold her responsible for what she does 'wrong' while she is pregnant? Are you going to sit there and deny that you wouldn't go the extra step, when the smoke clears, and start proposing new legislation that starts abusing women's rights about how they take care of themselves while they are pregnant? We are talking about Fetus's rights. I can see it now, women being held in contempt because they didn't follow doctors orders to the letter, and being put on trial for murder and being electrocuted, lethaly injected, or gassed TO DEATH because they had a miscarriage and they are accused of not handling their pregnancy responsibly. YOU CANT MAKE A FETUS A PERSON. The slippery slope here is way to steep, and with Christians in our government proposing laws based on responsibility and family values, we are absolutely guaranteed that they would take women's rights back to the middle ages! I absolutely believe that pro-lifers would not stop with the outlaw of abortion. I absolutely believe that pro-lifers would continue their fight to protect fetus's rights, at the cost of destroying the mother's rights, who is a real and bonified person. It makes no sense to destroy the rights of a person at the benefit of a potential person.

When christianity opposes science, it is defeated. Always.
When christianity invades politics, progress in human rights is sacrificed. Always.
When christianity realizes it is merely a philisophical notion, it can achieve justice and take its place as a tool for philosophers.

What good does it do for the berieved family to see the murderor put to death? I reject the notion that justice is served through "an eye for an eye" logic. Are you going to defend "an eye for an eye" against me?

Don't confuse the meaning of Pro-life. We let you anti-abortionists call yourselves pro-life, but don't just take a mile when you are given an inch. Pro-life means absolutely nothing more than that, and you can't just say that the framers were pro-life because they were good people. You can't say that the second continental congress was pro-life because they cared about liberty. You can't say that anyone is pro-life just because they care about life, because that has nothing to do with being pro-life. Essentially, being pro-life has nothing to do with being pro-life, as pro-lifers' pro-death penalty arguments typically exemplify. The label "pro-life" is simply a rhetorical device, just like the "USA Patriot act" label, and the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" label. What all three of these have in common is that they are all embellished terms created by Republicans to appeal to good people but accomplish something totally different. Pro-lifers work to send women back to the stone age, the USA Patriot act removes civil liberties from our constitution, and Operation Iraqi Freedom is a despicable name for a war that congress did not wage that has Iraqi's rights at the BOTTOM of its agenda.

This is my last chance to post in my argument, but please refer to the comments section where my positions are being attacked vigorously for a continuation of this debate.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

uhmm….I'm sorry that taking something out of context to support your argument is wrong.

uhm…I'm sorry that we don't like it when people who don't bother to study what they refuted act like professionals. I mean I wouldn't see why a scientist would get mad if I approached a scientist with 3 sentences of a textbook and used it to disprove science. I mean your completely right, asking someone to study what he opposes, not just what he supports is completely illogical, why the heck should anybody reject something after finishing an objective study? No the answer is to Reject before! Then you can always flip through it to find out ways to support what you support.

I'm sorry that the Christians that go to [and study for] AND school, know the bible and the science books, but I'm sorry that it doesn't work the same way for most atheist.

But hey you're the one offended I'm not, I'm use to anti-Christians ranting and raving and perfecting their craft of taking the bible out of context and using against us. Really I like it when they do it, because they make a neat little trap for themselves every time, only a novice Christian would fail to see how to capitalize on that trap and get offended. Ok I shouldn't be so mean, maybe its just someone not into apologetics , or maybe the hateful words spoken against us finally got to them even though we're suppose to be the hateful ones.

Now that I have addressed your bickering I will get onto serious matters and the subject.

Sure I agree that if Jesus came today he would be disgusted with a lot of things Christians have done and are doing for example, the crusades, the Spanish inquisition , the Russian purge. All done by Christians all very hateful 2/3 using the Christian banner.

But whats worse is the lack of justice that occurs when a woman forgoes the legal system that Jesus does support and makes a life and death decision on her own. I think Jesus would want somebody to do something to stop that, or at least that we don't commend it as a responsible action.

I am an individual in Human Development. I have more cells being created every day than dying, therefore I have positive growth, I am growing. My parents are also individuals in Human development, they are loosing more cells than are being created, they have a negative growth, they are becoming brittle. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, it creates an embryo. That embryo is an organism that is developing into a human, it is undergoing human development. His cells are growing and dividing at a faster rate than anyone of us , and getting organs online one by one. That is his stage of Human development. But we're all going through that development. And I think when we destroy that development it is the same as destroying my development or your development. The only people who have the right and responsibility to decide on terminating Human development is a jury after a thorough legal process.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
I can't lose!!
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
How are classes going leo? Got any time for a good old fashioned argument?
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
You say our founding fathers were pro-life. I don't completely blame you for this mistake, because I think most of the blame goes to whoever created this euphamistic term "pro-life". I absolutely despise euphemistic language, whether it be calling my toilet paper "bathroom tissue", my old car "late model", calling retarded individuals "mentally handicapped", calling anti-abortionists "pro-life", calling shell shock "post-traumatic-stress-disorder", etc. Euphemisms are rhetorical devices that are aimed at making you think a different way about something. This is almost always an immoral venture. We are uncomfortable about these things, so we change the name of them to confuse ourselves. The term pro-life is immoral in itself, because anti-abortionists are claiming to be on the side of life in general, even though they kill just as much life as any one of us do. I think that the debating we are doing now is the noble way to address these issues, and the "pro-life" term seeks to end the debate before it is even started. How about I just call my general set of beliefs about hot-button issues "PRO- AMERICAN" or "PRO-JUSTICE", and accuse you all of being against americanism or against justice itself? If you eventually did convince me that abortion is absolutely wrong, which is possible, I would not be able to fully convert because the term "pro-life" reeks of manipulation, and I imagine the person or persons that coined it were not open-minded individuals, interested in justice, but narrow-minded individuals, interested in purveying their own (probably religious) ideals at ANY cost, no matter what evidence is presented in contradiction, and no matter who may be affected unjustly as a result. Pro-choice is not much better, but I imagine this term was made in response to the pro-life term, and pro-choice does not have the same heavenly-inspired ring to it, as if you are wrong no matter what if you disagree with it. The framers lived before the invention of prolife
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
But I do think you went off topic in the end and just started to try and start throwing punishes at Conservatives in general for whatever reason however it didn't address the question. Pro-Life is the Position that our founders took when they penned the deceleration of independence , and they were willing to risk their life for that cause-they were excellent men, and I don't think the women who make the singular decision to terminate the development of another individual amounts to one grain of salt of what those men were.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
man I made a big mistake and recopied the first part of round 2 with round 3. The last part of round 3 isn't the same as round 2 though. My bad I was preparing everything on word adn I had it saved on my computer for a while so I re-openned it and finished it off.
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
Goldspurs: I didn't see all the symptoms of BDS in Rob, just the one symptom of hatred.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Rob, I have read your debate and you make some good points. I will leave comments about it on that page. Yes I have tried Cocaine. Only once. I was amazed at how bad I wanted it again after the effects wore off. I promised myself I would never touch it again. I don't have a problem with pot, I just think they should have a way to test how inebriated someone is on marijuana before making it legal. Still gonna roll a big fatty the day I get out of the Army in 13 years.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
GOldspurs, I am going to let most of your comments just slide by because I believe I have been letting off too much steam, and I have been failing to make my arguments humbly, which is the way they should be. I realize that, in this day and age, to say that drug users are oppressed is laughable. I like to think that my personal character is independant of time and space, and that through constant study of pure virtue I can escape the copious amount of assumptions that people make about morality, simply based on their culture at the time and place they live. I believe morality is absolute. Have you ever tried drugs? I have done cocaine before, as a teenager, and I can tell you something about it. Sure, it was wrong for me to try it in the first place, but unfortunately people make mistakes. We are allowed to make mistakes, and I believe that if there is a God then he let's us ammend our mistakes, especially those in which do not involve hurting other people. When you do cocaine, it makes you extremely happy. You feel like dancing around and talking to everyone, and you are on the top of the world. But after a while, that happiness ends. You start to fall into a deep depression, and unless you get more cocaine there is absolutely no hope for you. No amount of money, food, sex, or anything in the world can pull you out of it. You NEED the coke, like you are drowning and you need air. People in this situation need help. They are our fellow citizens, and we can, through very simple policies, correct their situations very easily. But this requires that we first stop persecuting them as criminals. We need to have faith that our citizens aren't going to start consuming drugs just because they are legal. I promise you that we can totally annihilate the drug problems in this country, through smarter legislation. I outline this in my other debate, please look to my profile to see it. My argument is absolutely infallable; I think you will see my points there
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
I think its suppose to be BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Check out this link from Wiki. Funny stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Yes I suppose I am a victim of BHS, perhaps it gets in the way of my better judgement. Do they make any drugs for that?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Rob1BillionLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 breaker11 9 years ago
breaker11
Rob1BillionLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 magpie 9 years ago
magpie
Rob1BillionLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
Rob1BillionLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 mcmurdo22 9 years ago
mcmurdo22
Rob1BillionLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Rob1BillionLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Rob1BillionLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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