The Instigator
bexy_kelly
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
LakevilleNorthJT
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

Concerning Postmen

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: 5/29/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,470 times Debate No: 4261
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (29)

 

bexy_kelly

Pro

Someone with a sense of humour please.

Dogs should be legally allowed to attack and bite postmen (or postwomen/ postpeople?). In fact, I propose opening this law up so that all animals would be allowed to attack postmen when delivering letters, packages etc.

You ask why? Is it not blatently obvious?

1) It would be good for dogs in the society. Not only would they recieve extra exercise and fun from attacking the postmen, they would be off their owners hands for a while, giving them the much needed break (dogs can be very like toddlers- cute, drooling, everything ends up in their mouths, but loud and annoying)

2) A TV show called "Postwatch" would be set up to telivise the attacking. This would be shown only at night, similar to "Crimewatch", except less pointless. This would recieve a large audience, as it would make great telivision.

3) Less court cases involving dog bites would be going on, therefore saving the time of the court people, who should be more concerned with the growing sheep-human mutant crossover that is currently taking over New Zealand.

4) It would also be very amusing to watch. You really can't argue against that. Crime rates are going up, mainly due to boredom in the big boring housing area's. This is a form of entertainment that I am offering to you for FREE. The only people who couldn't enjoy this would be blind people and they arn't normally the ones you find robbing shops anyway. Even the postman would find it funny, they would be running down the street laughing. And if they were killed by a dog, well, at least they went down with a smile :D AND they were "on duty" aswell. That can look really good on gravestones if you get the right carver and font

5) Everyone hates the mother****ing postmen anyway, they deserve it completly and they had it coming (don't even TRY to say they didn't see it coming - cartoons are on TV all the time, and more often then not are an accurate representation of life. Take South Park, for example)

You might say this wouldn't encourage people to become postmen, but why do you care? They can become scientists or whatever and become more productive for society. And anyway, theres always a few people really desparate for money, who will do ANYTHING for money. By anything, I really mean ANYTHING.
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

"Dogs should be legally allowed to attack and bite postmen (or postwomen/ postpeople?). In fact, I propose opening this law up so that all animals would be allowed to attack postmen when delivering letters, packages etc."

I must then argue that dogs should not bite postman. I will start off by addressing the arguments of my opponents.

"1) It would be good for dogs in the society. Not only would they recieve extra exercise and fun from attacking the postmen, they would be off their owners hands for a while, giving them the much needed break (dogs can be very like toddlers- cute, drooling, everything ends up in their mouths, but loud and annoying)"

What this argument comes down to is whether we would rather respect the autonomy of a human being or that of a dog. The answer is quite clear. Let me explain. My opponent says that a law must be past allowing for this occur. I contend that the government would not be fulfilling its obligation if it past this unjust law. The government has an obligation to protect its citizens and prevent crime. First, in order to achieve justice, the government must fulfill its obligation. Without the government fulfilling its obligation society would collapse and become unjust. Second, if government does not fulfill it's obligation, then crime will increase. This is because our society will be without proper supervision thus increasing crime.

Thus, the government has an obligation to protect it's obligation and protect it's citizens. By passing this law, the government would be failing to fulfill it's obligation. First they would not be protecting its citizens (the postmen), and would secondly be allowing crime (denying of postman's autonomy).
Thus the government needs to respect the autonomy of its postmen or else would not fulfill it's obligation. This would corrupt society. Thus we would rather look to what is good for postmen rather than dogs.

"2) A TV show called "Postwatch" would be set up to telivise the attacking. This would be shown only at night, similar to "Crimewatch", except less pointless. This would recieve a large audience, as it would make great telivision."

My opponent can in no way prove that this show would receive ratings. Peoples rights are more important than entertainment.

"Less court cases involving dog bites would be going on, therefore saving the time of the court people, who should be more concerned with the growing sheep-human mutant crossover that is currently taking over New Zealand."

This is a matter of opinion. I would argue that dog bite cases are more important than the sheep-human mutant crossover. Furthermore, this only affects New Zealand not the rest of the world.

"4) It would also be very amusing to watch. You really can't argue against that. Crime rates are going up, mainly due to boredom in the big boring housing area's. This is a form of entertainment that I am offering to you for FREE. The only people who couldn't enjoy this would be blind people and they arn't normally the ones you find robbing shops anyway. Even the postman would find it funny, they would be running down the street laughing. And if they were killed by a dog, well, at least they went down with a smile :D AND they were "on duty" aswell. That can look really good on gravestones if you get the right carver and font "

This is ridiculous. I can't believe you can see entertainment in other peoples pain. If you suggest that watching a dog bite a postman to death is entertainment, then you are being absolutely crazy and need to see a phsycologist. And to further on this, you proceed to make fun of blind people.

"5) Everyone hates the mother****ing postmen anyway, they deserve it completly and they had it coming (don't even TRY to say they didn't see it coming - cartoons are on TV all the time, and more often then not are an accurate representation of life. Take South Park, for example)"

To win this argument, my opponent has to show that every single person hates postmen. I like postmen. Thus my opponents argument is flawed. HOW ABOUT YOU WATCH THESE TV SHOWS FOR FUN INSTEAD OF INHUMANE ACTS.

"You might say this wouldn't encourage people to become postmen, but why do you care? They can become scientists or whatever and become more productive for society. And anyway, theres always a few people really desparate for money, who will do ANYTHING for money. By anything, I really mean ANYTHING."

Many of these postmen are not qualified to be scientists. Also look back to my autonomy argument. Every human has the same amount of autonomy no matter what their role in society is.

In this round, my opponent is suggesting something that is absolutely inhumane. I have also disproved all of her arguments. VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 1
bexy_kelly

Pro

Side note: My apologies for being so late in replying (6.5 hours until the round was forfeited), I simply forgot. However I do feel I can make a compelling argument against my opponent.

1) My opponent states that the role of a government is to protect its citizens and prevent crime. A quick search on dictionary.com came out with a citizen being defined as "an inhabitant of a city or town" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Now, I see a loophole in this argument. It can be argued that a dog is an inhabitant of a city or town, simply because it inhabits the town, i.e. it lives there. So a dog could be seen as a citizen (well according to dictionary.com anyway).

Therefore dogs would have equal rights as humans in this debate, seeing as all citizens are equal, are they not?

"First they would not be protecting its citizens (the postmen), and would secondly be allowing crime (denying of postman's autonomy)"

Dogs have a right to bite postmen! And as they are equal citizens it is simply a matter of choosing what side you are for: the dogs or the postmen? I am for the dogs for the simple reason that they outnumber postmen and that they are far more productive to society. A postman simply delivers letters and packages, when you could simply send an email, or be given a notice that there are packages waiting for you at the post office and get them yourself.

Dogs however can be your loyal companions for the length of their lives (15 or so years). They can lead blind people, help police catch the drug dealers and other criminals, and even help people regain their health. For example here is a story about a dog helping keep a boy alive: http://www.woai.com.... Here is also a story about a dog helping an autistic boy "connect with the world" http://www.wcsh6.com...

So dogs are far more valuable to society then postmen. So therefore they should be given the right to bite them.

2) People would watch the TV show, simply because people love watching other people get hurt. Well some people do anyway. Look at the success of the show "you've been framed" (http://www.wcsh6.com...). This show received a massive audience. The clips often showed people experiencing pain (falling over is a quite common subject). I argue that this new TV show receive viewings, simply because it would be depicting people experiencing pain in a comic matter.

3) I argue that the judges etc. should concentrate their energies on the topic of the sheep-mutant crossover because terrible things are happening at the moment. Poor innocent sheep are being raped, disgusting sheep-human mutants are being born, polluting the human genetics and really giving New Zealand a bad name.

And this law would not concern the "rest of the world" either, it would concern NEW ZEALAND. So you really should have no interest in this law, because it does not concern "the rest of the world" as you have stated in your previous argument.

4) In point 2) I have shown that people DO find entertainment in other peoples pain.

"If you suggest that watching a dog bite a postman to death is entertainment, then you are being absolutely crazy and need to see a phsycologist"

That would be a matter of opinion. And the dogs would NOT bite the postmen to death, they would give them a little nip on the fingers. Well they might bite their trouser legs aswell. I cannot see my finding entertainment in either of those situations my needing to see a phsycologist.

And I am NOT making fun of blind people. I stated two facts about them. I did not mock them in any way.

5) Ah yes of COURSE you would say that you like postmen, your representing the CON side aren't you? LIAR! Give me 10 good reasons why and then I will accept you being the only person who does not hate postmen

I feel I have made a convincing rebuttal to my opponents initial round. As my opponent has made a cry for the voters to vote con, I feel it would be unfair if I did not do the same thing:

VOTE PRO! DO NOT SUPPORT THE LIAR! I HAVE DISPROVEN ALL OF HIS REBUTTALS! VOTE PRO AND YOU VOTE FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF SOCIETY! VOTE AGAINST THE PERSON WHO ACCUSES OTHERS OF MOCKING BLIND PEOPLE!
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

I will address each of my opponents arguments individually.

1) My opponent states that the role of a government is to protect its citizens and prevent crime. A quick search on dictionary.com came out with a citizen being defined as "an inhabitant of a city or town" (http://dictionary.reference.com......). Now, I see a loophole in this argument. It can be argued that a dog is an inhabitant of a city or town, simply because it inhabits the town, i.e. it lives there. So a dog could be seen as a citizen (well according to dictionary.com anyway).

Therefore dogs would have equal rights as humans in this debate, seeing as all citizens are equal, are they not?

>>>>>>>>>> I offer a counter-definition. a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it. From this definition is it clear that a dog is not a autonomy entitled citizen.

"First they would not be protecting its citizens (the postmen), and would secondly be allowing crime (denying of postman's autonomy)"

Dogs have a right to bite postmen! And as they are equal citizens it is simply a matter of choosing what side you are for: the dogs or the postmen? I am for the dogs for the simple reason that they outnumber postmen and that they are far more productive to society. A postman simply delivers letters and packages, when you could simply send an email, or be given a notice that there are packages waiting for you at the post office and get them yourself.

>>>>>>>>>>I am a citizen but that DOES NOT mean I can go around biting people. Why in any way should dogs have this right.

Dogs however can be your loyal companions for the length of their lives (15 or so years). They can lead blind people, help police catch the drug dealers and other criminals, and even help people regain their health. For example here is a story about a dog helping keep a boy alive: http://www.woai.com....... Here is also a story about a dog helping an autistic boy "connect with the world" http://www.wcsh6.com......

So dogs are far more valuable to society then postmen. So therefore they should be given the right to bite them.

>>>>>>>>>>Postmen can also serve as loyal companions to their families. A DOCOR MAY BE CONSIDERED MORE VALUABLE TO SOCIETY BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN GO AROUND BITING WHOEVER THEY WISH.

"2) People would watch the TV show, simply because people love watching other people get hurt. Well some people do anyway. Look at the success of the show "you've been framed" (http://www.wcsh6.com......). This show received a massive audience. The clips often showed people experiencing pain (falling over is a quite common subject). I argue that this new TV show receive viewings, simply because it would be depicting people experiencing pain in a comic matter."

>>>>>>>>>>Extend the argument about how a persons well-being is more important than than entertainment.

3) I argue that the judges etc. should concentrate their energies on the topic of the sheep-mutant crossover because terrible things are happening at the moment. Poor innocent sheep are being raped, disgusting sheep-human mutants are being born, polluting the human genetics and really giving New Zealand a bad name.

>>>>>>>>>>1. Poor postmen are being bitten.
2. Why should anyone care that New Zealand is getting a bad name?

And this law would not concern the "rest of the world" either, it would concern NEW ZEALAND. So you really should have no interest in this law, because it does not concern "the rest of the world" as you have stated in your previous argument.

>>>>>>>>>This is a completely new argument. My opponent cannot just change the debate in any way she wishes. Disregard this point.

4) In point 2) I have shown that people DO find entertainment in other peoples pain.

>>>>>>>>>> NO YOU DIDN'T

That would be a matter of opinion. And the dogs would NOT bite the postmen to death, they would give them a little nip on the fingers. Well they might bite their trouser legs aswell. I cannot see my finding entertainment in either of those situations my needing to see a phsycologist.

>>>>>>>>>>Once again, MY OPPONENT KEEPS ON CHANGING WHAT SHE PREVIOUSLY ADVOCATED IN HOPES OF WINNING THIS ROUND.

5) Ah yes of COURSE you would say that you like postmen, your representing the CON side aren't you? LIAR! Give me 10 good reasons why and then I will accept you being the only person who does not hate postmen

>>>>>>>>>> YOU WOULD SAY DOGS SHOULD BITE POSTMEN. YOUR REPRESENTING THE PRO SIDE ARENT YOU? LIAR!!

DO NOT SUPPORT THE LIAR! I HAVE DISPROVEN ALL OF HIS REBUTTALS! VOTE PRO AND YOU VOTE FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF SOCIETY! VOTE AGAINST THE PERSON WHO MOCKS BLIND PEOPLE!
Debate Round No. 2
bexy_kelly

Pro

">>>>>>>>>> I offer a counter-definition. a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it. From this definition is it clear that a dog is not a autonomy entitled citizen."

I have set out the initial definition. You can't set another definition without me accepting it, which I do not. My opponent also needs to do a bit more explaining aswell to show that a dog is not "a autonomy entitled citizen". I for one do not comprehend this statement!

"I am a citizen but that DOES NOT mean I can go around biting people. Why in any way should dogs have this right"

I will now define "people", since my opponent has left this open. A "person" is simply something with a "personality". And I will now make the claim that inanimate objects can have a "personality". Why? Because people often say "that chair adds a good deal of the Edwardian character to the room". In order to have "character" the chair must have some form of a "personality", mustn't it?

You would of course be allowed bite a chair, however I do not advise it, you might get carted off the the mental asylum. But on a second thought, that might be best for everyone.

An example of such a chair would be as follows: http://www.thefurniture.com...

"Postmen can also serve as loyal companions to their families"

My opponent fails to explain however why they are more valuable to society.

"A DOCOR MAY BE CONSIDERED MORE VALUABLE TO SOCIETY BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN GO AROUND BITING WHOEVER THEY WISH"

I would be very interested to know what a "DOCOR" is. A quick search on Google came up with this: http://www.docor.co.il...

It seems to be that a "docor" is a website promoting businesses or something of the sort. I don't know whether its "MORE VALUABLE TO SOCIETY" or not, but I can tell you this, a website cannot physically bite someone. Good luck trying to prove that.

"Extend the argument about how a persons well-being is more important than than entertainment"

K I'll extend it then.

"People would watch the TV show, simply because people love watching other people get hurt. Well some people do anyway. Look at the success of the show "you've been framed" (http://www.wcsh6.com.........). This show received a massive audience. The clips often showed people experiencing pain (falling over is a quite common subject). I argue that this new TV show receive viewings, simply because it would be depicting people experiencing pain in a comic matter.[]"

By putting in the final two empty brackets, I have EXTENDED MY ARGUMENT, just as my opponent has asked. It is also to be noted that my opponent makes no effort to refute this point, simply demanding that I extend my argument. I will now demand that my opponent REFUTES MY POINT, NOT MAKE DEMANDS.

"1. Poor postmen are being bitten.
2. Why should anyone care that New Zealand is getting a bad name?"

My opponent has now taken a lazy form of debating as I would like to call it. He claims that "poor postmen are being bitten" but does not offer any reason to believe why not.

He also asks "Why anyone should care that New Zealand is getting a bad name?"

New Zealand is a piece of land, which is very valuable. The simple fact that land has a large monetary value should prod you into action to SAVE NEW ZEALAND FROM THE SHEEP HATERS!

"This is a completely new argument. My opponent cannot just change the debate in any way she wishes. Disregard this point"

It is not COMPLETLY new, as I had mentioned New Zealand before. I was withholding the point for the second round, as is often done in debates. So I would ask the voters to regard this point.

"NO YOU DIDN'T"

In fact, YES I DID (to put it into your form of typing!)

The show "You've been framed" had many acts of pain involved. I will site this as evidence:

You could clearly hear the people laughing in the background as the people fell over, got hurt etc. This proves that people DO find enjoyment in other peoples pain.

So I did in fact :D

"Once again, MY OPPONENT KEEPS ON CHANGING WHAT SHE PREVIOUSLY ADVOCATED IN HOPES OF WINNING THIS ROUND"

Once again, my opponent lazily types something in block capitals in hopes of wining this round.

"YOU WOULD SAY DOGS SHOULD BITE POSTMEN. YOUR REPRESENTING THE PRO SIDE ARENT YOU? LIAR!!"

Oh yes, I am completely lying through my teeth when I say I am representing the PRO side. It is blatantly obvious I am not, even though "Pro - in favour" is written above my name at the top. I am so glad that you foiled another liar. You should become a full time lie detector, you do the job better then the machines!

"DO NOT SUPPORT THE LIAR! I HAVE DISPROVEN ALL OF HIS REBUTTALS! VOTE PRO AND YOU VOTE FOR THE GENERAL GOOD OF SOCIETY! VOTE AGAINST THE PERSON WHO MOCKS BLIND PEOPLE!"

I am so glad you agree. Take my opponents advice and VOTE PRO, dear voters.
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

"I have set out the initial definition. You can't set another definition without me accepting it, which I do not. My opponent also needs to do a bit more explaining aswell to show that a dog is not "a autonomy entitled citizen". I for one do not comprehend this statement!"

You cannot put out a normal definition without me accepting it. I have clearly shown that dogs have autonomy but people have more.

"I will now define "people", since my opponent has left this open. A "person" is simply something with a "personality". And I will now make the claim that inanimate objects can have a "personality". Why? Because people often say "that chair adds a good deal of the Edwardian character to the room". In order to have "character" the chair must have some form of a "personality", mustn't it?

You would of course be allowed bite a chair, however I do not advise it, you might get carted off the the mental asylum. But on a second thought, that might be best for everyone.

An example of such a chair would be as follows: http://www.thefurniture.com...;

MY OPPONENT SAYS I CAN BITE CHAIRS BUT DOES NOT SAY WHY I CANT BITE HUMANS WHO BY MY OPPONENTS DEFINITION ARE ALSO PEOPLE.

"My opponent fails to explain however why they are more valuable to society."

THIS WAS THE ARGUMENT YOU MADE ABOUT WHY DOGS ARE BETTER SO I DONT SEE WHY I CANT USE A COUNTER ARGUMENT.

I would be very interested to know what a "DOCOR" is. A quick search on Google came up with this: http://www.docor.co.il......

It seems to be that a "docor" is a website promoting businesses or something of the sort. I don't know whether its "MORE VALUABLE TO SOCIETY" or not, but I can tell you this, a website cannot physically bite someone. Good luck trying to prove that.

It is obvious I was trying to say doctor.

"K I'll extend it then."

I WIN OFF THIS ARGUMENT ALONE.

"By putting in the final two empty brackets, I have EXTENDED MY ARGUMENT, just as my opponent has asked. It is also to be noted that my opponent makes no effort to refute this point, simply demanding that I extend my argument. I will now demand that my opponent REFUTES MY POINT, NOT MAKE DEMANDS."

I CLEARLY REFUTED THIS POINT BY SAYING a persons well-being is more important than than entertainment.

"My opponent has now taken a lazy form of debating as I would like to call it. He claims that "poor postmen are being bitten" but does not offer any reason to believe why not."

SHE IS STRAYING AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS BY SIMPLY JUST SAYING ITS LAZY DEBATE.

"New Zealand is a piece of land, which is very valuable. The simple fact that land has a large monetary value should prod you into action to SAVE NEW ZEALAND FROM THE SHEEP HATERS!"

NO IT WOULDNT.

"You could clearly hear the people laughing in the background as the people fell over, got hurt etc. This proves that people DO find enjoyment in other peoples pain.'

ONCE AGAIN WELL BEING OVER ENTERTAINMENT.

"Once again, my opponent lazily types something in block capitals in hopes of wining this round."

YOURE THE ONE BEING LAZY AND NOT RESPONDING TO ANYTHING.

"Oh yes, I am completely lying through my teeth when I say I am representing the PRO side. It is blatantly obvious I am not, even though "Pro - in favour" is written above my name at the top. I am so glad that you foiled another liar. You should become a full time lie detector, you do the job better then the machines!"

MY OPPONENT CONCEDES SHE IS LYING.

VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
haha no probs. Ah well I guess I really lost this one, well done to my opponent.

I guess it was an inevitable outcome... I guess people value a postie more then a dog.

Haha I just noticed that dog backwards is god... hmmm maybe theres a big psycological thing going on here! hehe only messin I really doubt it
Posted by CaliBeachgirl 8 years ago
CaliBeachgirl
Whoops my bad. I guess i didn't quite read into it enough.
lol
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
*seriously

(25 characters)
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
CaliBeachgirl, this debate wasn't supposed to be taken seiously...
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
The neutral of postmen/postwomen is "posties" - around here at least.
Posted by CaliBeachgirl 8 years ago
CaliBeachgirl
Goodness commen sence people! How would you like no mail deliverd to you anymore, because your stupid dog attacks the mail person.
Posted by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
I would appreciate if you stop questioning my intelligence and debating ability.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
I highly doubt thats Yraelz, if you actually look at Yraelz's style, he dosn't debate in long strings of block capitals
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
"MY OPPONENT CONCEDES SHE IS LYING"

And sarcasm is clearly not part of your vocabulary either
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
correction: the debater formerly known as Yralez...
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by emman101 8 years ago
emman101
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 lawyer_in_training 8 years ago
lawyer_in_training
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 ally93 8 years ago
ally93
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 nationalsqualifier 8 years ago
nationalsqualifier
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 Cro-magnon 8 years ago
Cro-magnon
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 debate.com 8 years ago
debate.com
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 turnthatargument 8 years ago
turnthatargument
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 proceduraljustice 8 years ago
proceduraljustice
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 debatingisfun 8 years ago
debatingisfun
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
bexy_kellyLakevilleNorthJTTied
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