The Instigator
pawletoe
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points

Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your NOT out...

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 9/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,964 times Debate No: 5441
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

pawletoe

Con

I read buringpuppies101's Big Issue and what side he went for on death penalty.

First, I'd like to say, it is morally correct to punish a criminal with death. We don't need criminals who have brought death to our fellow citizens. We don't need criminals who rape or murder.

I first believe they should serve prison time for the first murder, obviously. But if that criminal has been to jail and still murders, it is common sense jail has not changed the person. He/she must serve another more extend time in jail with a prison that is more heavily guarded. For the 3rd time that person kills and is caught, that person must be sent to death because prison definitely has no affect on the criminal.
burningpuppies101

Pro

Before I start, I just want to thank everyone who will be involved in this debate in any way.
Secondly, I just want to clarify this debate. My opponent has made the topic of this debate: Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your out...
Him being the con to this side, I would normally assume that he is trying to show this: Death Penalty- Killing 3 times and your NOT out... in other words, he is supposed to go against the topic shown. However, after reading my opponent's argument, I have realized that what he intended to do was to make him supporting the death penalty. I don't really understand why he made himself con, but I think that it was just a slip on his part. However, I think that to clear up the debate, we should assume that pawletoe is actually debating the Pro side of this argument, and I am debating the Con side of this argument. So with that aside, let's get to the debate.

So for this debate, I am supposed to argue against the topic, which is about basically instituting a "3 strike" rule for Killing. My opponent is supposed to argue in favor of having this "3 strike" rule, and I am supposed to argue against this 3 strike rule. Let me point out however, that the burden of proof lies on my opponent, not me. So I don't have to prove my case, I just have to disprove my opponents. However, if in disproving my opponent, I prove my own stance, so be it.

Let me begin by refuting my opponent's points.

I do not think that we should be showing killing is wrong by killing those who kill. Does that make sense??? We are deciding to punish those who kill and show that killing is wrong by strapping those people into a chair and electrocuting the living daylights out of them??? Melting their eyeballs, and all that horrific stuff that go with the electric chair??? Or should we be sticking needles into people to inject chemicals that are supposed to do their job of making the victim numb and not to be able to feel anything, but it is shown too often they fail??? So instead of dying a painless death, these victims are subject to extreme pain beyond anything we can measure, and they die that way. Do they really deserve that???


However, there is a flaw in this argument. In order for this to happen, the murderer would need at least 2 lives. Let us assume that we are talking about the state of California, seeing as you live there, and therefore would probably be more familiar with the laws there.
In the state of California, if you are guilty of first degree murder (usually understood to mean pre-meditated murder), then you will either get life in prison without parole, minimum of 25 years to life in prison, or death. So if you kill once, you would get life in prison, or a minimum of 25 years. Lets not get into the death part yet, since that is the point of this debate. Lets say that you are lucky and get the minimum of 25 years, and you kill again. This is your second murder, and seeing as it is again premeditated and you were jailed once and released, the courts would most likely not take a chance and jail you for life. Therefore, there is no way you are coming out again, so you can't really kill 3 times, get caught all 3 times, and then get death penalty. So this negates your first and only argument.

My points:
1. I do not have to prove that the death penalty should not be used. That is not the purpose of this debate. The direct interpretation, which I am assuming my opponent is using, is that this debate is about whether or not we should institute a "3 strike" rule before we kill the murderer. My opponent has the burden of proof, and he has to prove that we should indeed have this "3 strike rule" All I have to do in this debate is to disprove my opponents arguments like I did above, and then I will win this debate. However, if in doing so I show some arguments of my own, so be it.

2. I propose that we should not use a 3 strike rule, but instead we should use a 1 strike rule. If you kill someone in a premeditated murder, you should be punished immediately. Why in the world should we allow these people a second chance to kill someone else??? That is like making that murderer's life more valuable than your average citizen because if the murderer is allowed to kill someone, and that murderer is released back into society, and can kill again, you are saying that that murderer can kill 2 people before he will be killed. So 2 average citizens= 1 murderer. That makes no sense. Imagine if we gave them a third chance!!

Thats all for now, but remember it should be enough since all I have to do is disprove my opponent's points in any way I need.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
pawletoe

Con

1. Yes I did do a mistake, I was suppose to be Pro for death penalty. My bad =P
2. I didn't really mean a 3 strike rule but I was using it as an example.
3. I didn't intend to have the current state laws applied since that is what we are trying to debate about. And even if the prisoner wasn't able to get out of prison, there are more criminals titled as murders in prison then out. That is because most criminals get in prison for thief or drugs (for example). Then they join gangs and the gang leader orders them to stab or kill another gang or race. --- I guess that is how you get your 2nd or 3rd kill.
4. I see a death penalty as getting rid of the criminals who have had chances and regretted it. They have taken other people's lives. These criminals did have a right to choose the results of their lives plus the lives of the ones they killed. I personally would rather kill then be killed.
5. Yes there are tragedies that occur in the process in a death penalty. I'm against the criminals feeling pain as well. I would be amazed to know that a state still uses "the chair" to execute a prisoner. I am in favor of "the shot". Yes, the injections have failed in some cases. But some reasons are because the veins of the criminal were hard to find. Many of them work out to gain muscle, hoping the injection will fail and they will survive. Recently, doctors and scientist have improved machines on finding the veins of the criminal to inject.
6. I am not "allowing" a person to kill again.

---for example--
The first sentence is about 10 years of jail and something else (like probation or whatever).
The second sentence, let's say, is 25 years to life in prison. This still doesn't mean the prison can't kill another prisoner.
On the third murder, after the prisoner is guilty, it is common sense, the prisoner has not changed and/or prison has not affected him.

What else are we suppose to do? Ban him/her from the US and let another country worry about this? Are we suppose to make eye contact and say don't do it again?

I believe in an eye for an eye but with chances and opportunities to redeem yourself. But takes the lives of 3 and expect to go back to your cell and get food and a place to rest everyday doesn't seem like a punishment to that person.

I actually don't see it as a punishment now. It is more like letting the after-life handle our problem. If there is a "higher power", then let them sort out the naughties from the nicies. Or if nothing happens, well then, nothing happens. We just don't want a person like that in our country. And letting others solve it seems lazy and irresponsible.

Note: I'm picturing a typical gang member who has killed 3 or more people and is serving life in prison. Let's say we are the judge and he/she has been proved guilty clearly. We have to decide to put him/her back in a cell or dispose of a murderer that has complete loyalty to a gang and is willing to kill again.

I know there are special cases of murderers that have psychological problems or the murder wasn't painful to the victim (quick shot to the head or a cynine pill). But that is what I'm seeing as a typical serial murderer.
burningpuppies101

Pro

1. no problem, as long as we understand each other.
2. That's not how I saw the topic. My interpretation of the topic was that you were arguing in favor of a 3 strike rule, and I was arguing against one. Because you did not clarify what you interpreted from the topic in the first round, you can't change your interpretation now. If you intended it as an example, you should have used it in your speech, not the topic.
3. I don't quite see your point in this argument. You are saying that one can go to jail once, kill, come out, murder, and then get the death penalty on the 3rd murder. If you kill, you are going to be given life in prison. You aren't going to get out because you went in on drugs. Because you killed in prison, they would probably extend your term to life imprisonment. So still, you would need more than one life to get 3 convictions of murder. That wouldn't work.
4. If you want to get rid of the criminals we don't want in society, we don't have to kill them. We could put them in solitary confinement in a cell that is heavily guarded. That is essentially the same thing. You argue that we should kill those who we don't want in society anymore. According to your logic, we should just kill all those who we see as people we don't want in our society. Life in prison is the same thing, and if anything it would be worse. Imagine living on your own, your meals pushed through a hole in the door, and you have nothing to do, no one to talk to. Most people who undergoe this would probably go crazy. If anything, that is painless, but worse than just killing them. I don't think we should be allowed to kill these murderers in such brutal fashions, just to show that them killing by painless means is wrong.
5. And I am saying that we should not be killing those who have killed, just to show that they are wrong for killing. We would be hypocrites for doing so. And whether you want it or not, these mistakes happen all the time, yet we continue to kill those people. I submit that that is wrong.

6. Yes you are. Let me put it this way; You are advocating for a 3 strike rule. In other words, you are saying that if a person kills once, lets let them out after a few years, give them a chance to kill again, give them a couple more years, and then let them kill a third time, AND THEN punish them. Because you are claiming that jail doesn't change that person, then jail must not be a punishment then. So you are waiting until the 3 kill before you allow that person to be punished. I propose that we shouldn't even give them that chance of killing for a second time, and we should just put them in jail for their life. If you advocate an eye for an eye, then you should agree with me. We are taking one eye(the victim) for one eye (the murderer). The way I see it, you are advocating THREE EYES (the three chances that murderer has to kill, thanks to the 3 strike rule) for ONE EYE!!!(the murderer's life). Is that fair??? You are again, valuing the murderer's life more than the victim's life since you are waiting until their third murder until you punish them.

your example:
What we can do is put them in solitary confinement without the chance of parole for life. We can let them spend their lifetime to think about what they have done and what that act has done to their life. We shouldn't just kill them for killing someone else. The government should not be stooping to the murderer's level, and they should show that they are better than the murderer by not killing them like the murder has killed others, but instead we should just put them into solitary confinement for the rest of their life. If anything, that is a worse punishment since they have to live for the rest of their life with that guilt upon them, and the consequences.


I'm not advocating letting the person kill 3 times and let him go back to jail. I'm advocating that we should only give them that one chance, and if they kill someone, they should go to jail for life. We shouldn't even let them get another chance in society to kill once more, and once more, and them give them the death penalty. We should just jail them for life and not let them out.


What, the death penalty? If so, then aren't you just conceding to my side?

So I just finished refuting all of my opponent's points. Seeing as he hasn't refuted mine, I can't do much but extend my arguments.

My opponent in this debate is supposed to be advocating in favor of a THREE STRIKE RULE, before you get the death penalty. He claims that the first 2 jailings have not changed that person, so the third time we should punish them with death, the ultimate punishment. However, this is wrong because the first 2 jailings have not been a punishment if that murderer comes out and kills again. I propose that we should punish them the first time and jail them for life, instead of the few years my opponent advocates.

1. I do not have to prove that the death penalty should not be used. That is not the purpose of this debate. The direct interpretation, which I am assuming my opponent is using, is that this debate is about whether or not we should institute a "3 strike" rule before we kill the murderer. My opponent has the burden of proof, and he has to prove that we should indeed have this "3 strike rule" All I have to do in this debate is to disprove my opponents arguments like I did above, and then I will win this debate. However, if in doing so I show some arguments of my own, so be it.

2. I propose that we should not use a 3 strike rule, but instead we should use a 1 strike rule. If you kill someone in a premeditated murder, you should be punished immediately. Why in the world should we allow these people a second chance to kill someone else??? That is like making that murderer's life more valuable than your average citizen because if the murderer is allowed to kill someone, and that murderer is released back into society, and can kill again, you are saying that that murderer can kill 2/3 people before he will be killed. So 2/3 average citizens= 1 murderer. That makes no sense. Imagine if we gave them a third chance!!

Thank you, and I await your speech.
Debate Round No. 2
pawletoe

Con

Ok I see what you mean by with the solitary confinement.

1. I don't see why we should be taking care of a murderer. Why should we pay for his food, clean clothes, showers, guards, safety, and upkeep for the prison he/she is in. I personally don't want to take care of a murderer that will kill anyone especially the guards that are taking care of him/her.

2. Even in solitary confinement, prisoners have still have a chance to kill a guard or attempt an escape. Solitary confinement still isn't painful for a prisoner. Some see it as a statue of being more "bad" then other regular prisoners. In there mind, they are satisfied that they achieved such a title to be a prisoner of solitary confinement. Many (if not most) prisoners pee and poopie on the floor and not in the toilet to make guards work harder and clean it up. They live around in their own urine and it doesn't disturb them. There has been too many cases when a prisoner has tried to grab a guard's hand or attempt an escape. We can't accuse him of it because he is already in solitary confinement. What is the point of making a case against him or punishing him.

They aren't like regular humans. They've been trained to live tough. First, they are use to the prison life. Then they get in "the hole" more and more. And when they reach solitary confinement, they already know how it feels to live in tough conditions.

3. Solitary confinement is like chaining up a dog in a metal box that he can move around. It seems like you won't be able to stand living that way but we are humans, we are animals. As animals we adapt to the conditions we have. For example, in "Between a Rock and a hard place", a human has his arm stuck between 2 rocks and is in the middle of a forest. He urinates on himself to keep cool and drinks it to keep hydrated. He performs surgery on himself to cut off his arm. I'm pretty sure, solitary confinement is a horrible place compared to the dangers humans have faced throughout history.

4.

No, I am merely saying, for all we know it is not a punishment. Maybe we all go to heaven and the murderers must be having a drink with Jesus right now. I simply, think we should not have murderers with us if they are not with our laws that the majority of people believe in and have voted on.

5. I'm not allowing a person to kill again. I suggest the person receives a second chance after spending time in jail. Obviously, if that person changed in jail he would have a clean record of jail time. The person would not have been in a gang in jail or stabbed or done drugs while he was in jail. Then the person deserves a second chance. If that person kills again, it is obvious that he hasn't changed in jail. He should receive life in prison and/or solitary confinement.

"He only get out of jail the first time, if he served a clean record of jail time."

6. You can not be classified as something if you did it once. Classifying a person as a murderer should only be done if a person intended to kill someone.

Let's say a criminal kills someone because the victim did something to the criminal. Now let's compare that to, a criminal is hurt by an individual and plans out an action to kill the victim. Or a gang member kills a "granny" just because his leader told him to. The first punishment really should just depend on the type of murder that was taken. The others really don't depend on the murder since the criminal is then be titled as a murderer.

I really meant to show that we should use the death penalty and was using a 3 strike rule as an example. Although, I put killing 3 times and your out as the title of the debate. I also want to add that the debate was made somewhat incorrectly by my part but I'm sure "death penalty: pro or con" is what the majority of people will understand it as.
burningpuppies101

Pro

Seeing as this is the last round in this debate, I want to thank everyone for reading this. However, I want to point out that fact that in a debate, you are not supposed to introduce new arguments, in the interest of fairness. However, I want to point out that my opponent has indeed provided some new arguments in his last speech. I'll still refute them, but you, the voter, should disregard any of his arguments that were not provided in his first 2 speeches.
<1. I don't see why we should be taking care of a murderer. Why should we pay for his food, clean clothes, showers, guards, safety, and upkeep for the prison he/she is in. I personally don't want to take care of a murderer that will kill anyone especially the guards that are taking care of him/her.>
Why should we take care of him/her??? Because that person deserves a punishment. Solitary confinement is more of a punishment than the death penalty, since you have no choice but to live out your life with the guilt and consequences of what you have done. Why should we reward these people with the option of death, where they can escape the guilt? This is why we should imprison that murderer for the rest of his/her life. "I personally don't want to take care of a murderer that will kill anyone especially the guards that are taking care of him/her." I personally don't want to know that money that I send to the government will be used to kill people in an inhumane fashion.

<2. Even in solitary confinement, prisoners have still have a chance to kill a guard or attempt an escape. Solitary confinement still isn't painful for a prisoner. Some see it as a statue of being more "bad" then other regular prisoners. In there mind, they are satisfied that they achieved such a title to be a prisoner of solitary confinement. Many (if not most) prisoners pee and poopie on the floor and not in the toilet to make guards work harder and clean it up. They live around in their own urine and it doesn't disturb them. There has been too many cases when a prisoner has tried to grab a guard's hand or attempt an escape. We can't accuse him of it because he is already in solitary confinement. What is the point of making a case against him or punishing him.
They aren't like regular humans. They've been trained to live tough. First, they are use to the prison life. Then they get in "the hole" more and more. And when they reach solitary confinement, they already know how it feels to live in tough conditions.>

How are you going to kill a guard that you never see? How can you kill someone you never come into contact with? Solitary confinement is indeed what is is claimed to be. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. You are alone(solitary) in a confined space. Also, the guards shouldn't have to clean up the criminal's mess. I agree. However, I think that the guards should just let them be.

Keywords here; Tried, attempt. In other words, the prisoner was unsuccessful.
What is the point???? What is the point of killing them. I'm sure my opponent will say to punish them. In the same way, solitary confinement works too.


How are they used to the prison life??? If according to the 3 strike rule, the criminal is only in the prison twice in his life..... not more and more.... You are exaggerating. And yes, they know how to live in prison. However, in prison, there are other people to interact with. There is something. Yet, in solitary confinement, there is no one. You can never be ready to live your life in a small room for ever and never see the light of day again, and never see anyone or anything other than what is in your room.

3. Your third point can only support my case. You claim that solitary confinemnt is a horrible place. THEN THE CRIMINAL SHOULD NOT HAVE KILLED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!! This is what he gets for murdering, if it is after 3 kills, or as I advocate, 1 kill.

4. You are conceding to my side. You are saying the death penalty isn't really a penalty, since you think that perhaps everyone goes to heaven anyways. Assuming they are theistic in the first place. And if you don't want murderers in our midst, you shouldn't let them out after they have killed!!!!!!! And let them have the chance to kill again!!!!!!!!!!! and AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So you are indeed conceding to my side. My side states that either we kill them after one murder, or we give them solitary confinement after one murder. Either way, you are conceding to my side.

5. Why should one who has killed deserve a second chance??? You are saying that we should let a murderer the chance of killing again, when they have a proven record of killing before??? Why should we let them back into society?? Plus, part of your case states that we should GET RID OF THOSE WHO HAVE MURDERED. You are contradicting yourself.

6. Exactly, which is who we have been discussing for the past week or so. If the criminal kills someone because the victim did something to the criminal(which I'll assume you are talking about attempted murder) then the criminal would not get convicted in the first place. If you were not talking about attempted murder, then the murderer has no excuse. He cannot claim self defense since that does not work. And if a gang member kills a "granny because a leader tells him to, it is still the gang member's fault he decided to kill the granny.


Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but now is the wrong time to point this out. For future reference, you should define your topic as how you interpret it in the first speech.
CONCLUSION
My opponent has made an outstanding case, but one not without flaws. I have successfully refuted all of his points, and for the details read the debate. Because the burden of proof in this debate lies on the Proposition, and my opponent has failed to prove anything in this debate that has not been disproved, I have won this debate.
A rehash of my arguments
My case is built upon the foundation that there are two options I am advocating. After one kill, you either kill the criminal in the most humane way possible, or you give them life in prison in solitary confinement. Either one of these cases can win me the debate, but I have been able to extend enough of my arguments that I have won both cases. I said that instead of letting the criminal have 3 chances in society, we should give them one chance, and if they violate the rules of the society, often times the law, they should no longer be allowed into the society. They should be removed from the society. My opponent also agrees with me. He says that the way to get rid of them is the death penalty. In other words, he has conceded this debate when he said that. The topic of this debate is not the death penalty. The topic of this debate is the 3 strike rule. My opponent claimed in his second and third rounds that the topic of this debate was actually about the death penalty, and not about the 3 strike rule, but it is too late for him to change the topic. I would be more than willing to debate him again, but instead on the death penalty like he wanted. Because most of his case was based upon a topic that did not exist in this debate, I have won this debate.
Thank You
p.s. I realize that I did not really rehash my arguments as promised. However, at this time I only have 35 characters l
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by pawletoe 8 years ago
pawletoe
LOL I have 7 points!?!?!?

I screwed myself up with this debate... you don't have to show pity to me, I lost it big time. =P

I learned so much from this debate though. Much more from just reading other people debating. Thank you burningpuppies101 for accepting it in the first place...
Posted by pawletoe 8 years ago
pawletoe
ya i guess. I didnt re-look the topic or the position for the debate. >.>

It is pretty good though, makes me feel smarterer. =P

I gonna keep doing this, it feels good especially when you don't have to talk in front of a crowd and getting nervous and sutter. D=
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
however, i have to say, for your first debate, you did very well pawletoe. One thing I would tell you other than what Jblake said. When you word your topics, make them so that they accuratley reflect what you want to debate. that is what threw you this round.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I would suggest to Con to look around at some other debates and see how people structure their arguments. You have a lot of statements that are more opinion than fact. Find evidence to support your statements. This will require a little bit of research, but your argument will be better in the end.

Brian Eggleston has an excellent format and style of debate, so I would suggest looking at how he presents some of his cases.

Don't get discouraged if it takes some time to develop these skills. Welcome to the community.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
sorry about that last speech, I ran out of characters. Just scroll to my first and second speech for my arguments.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Yes, you certainly picked a tough one for your first debate...welcome aboard b/t/w!

I wouldn't describe the subject in hand as "fun" though!

You shouldn't need any help from fellow debaters when there are so many pro-death penalty webpages out there!
Posted by pawletoe 8 years ago
pawletoe
Comments??? anyone... help! >.< lol
This is my first debate and I thought it would be fun to debate about, but i guess i picked a tough one. I still stand by what I say, I just hope the message is clear. =P
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Cindela 8 years ago
Cindela
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
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 King_Jas 8 years ago
King_Jas
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
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 crazypenguin 8 years ago
crazypenguin
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
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 sdcharger 8 years ago
sdcharger
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
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 sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
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 burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
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 bsufan101 8 years ago
bsufan101
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
pawletoeburningpuppies101Tied
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