The Instigator
dobsondebator
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

Debate.org ought to use Lincoln Douglas formatted debate as required

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 5/1/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,586 times Debate No: 8054
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (15)

 

dobsondebator

Pro

I'm just going to use this round to set up the debate. I urge the con to do the same as well.

So what is Lincoln Douglas (also known as "LD") debate? Well, it's a structered debate used in high school Speech and Debate tournaments. Nationally recognized and practiced, the National Forensics League of America (also known as "NFL") maintains a roling set of rules regarding this debate.

For those who don't know the structure of Lincoln Douglas, it's a formatted, timed, alternating speech debate. Specifics can be found just about anywhere online. After all, Google is your friend :].

So what does this debate come down to? Essentially, we're asking whether or not Debate.org ought to use LD as the only form of debate. Every member debating on this website would be required to use this format.

The CON is essentially arguing that we shouldn't use LD. The PRO, of course, has to argue that we ought to. We're not going to argue in LD style for this debate; after all, how hypocritical would it be for the CON to argue in the style that he/she is trying to disprove?

Should this be a fairly legitimate round, I urge the administration and webmasters of Debate.org to consider this debate and whether or not we ought to. My thanks go out to those who view and to the person who accepts this. Thank you for your time!
pcmbrown

Con

Lincoln-Douglas is not the only format of debate. Other formats include Public and Public Forum. Therefore, my opponent must demonstrate how Lincoln-Douglas is superior to these.

Lincoln-Douglas requires cross-examination. This is logistically rather difficult given the nature of debate.org. Therefore, my opponent must prove this to be feasible.

Lincoln-Douglas restricts topic selection. As it requires a value and criterion, numerous debate topics, e.g. "Resolved: Reggie Bush has had a successful career." cannot be debated. This limits the scope and population of debate.org.

Thanks for posting.
Debate Round No. 1
dobsondebator

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate! I am eager to see how things develop.

First, I'm going to match my opponent's burdens, and then present arguments.

Let's look at his first "observation" per say. My opponent says there are other forms of debate in which I must show LD to be superior to. I assume he meant "policy and public forum", so I'll go by that. I can definitely do that.

1) Lincoln Douglas debate is superior simply because of the fact that it takes a lot less effort to co-ordinate online.
2) It'd be impossible to show one debate should be preferred over another. Every debate has its flaws and its pro's. They'll balance each other out and then, all debates will be equal.
3) Regardless of the fact that I have to prove LD as preferred, we still have to look at it for this round. Otherwise, what do we have to debate?

On to my opponents second "observation" about cross examination.

1) It's perfectly feasible to carry out. For example, a live chat system can be used to question your opponent. Or, a small "forum" per say, just for that debate.
2) But even if it's not, exceptions can be made. Obviously, it's not going to be perfect to run LD on an online site. But cross-ex isn't exactly critical to the debate as a whole; it's the speeches that really carry the arguments.
3) We can't really claim that cross-ex is bad, because it exists in the other debates as well. So it's non-unique to LD.

Finally, his last observation, about the scope of LD's nature.

1) LD topics are typically very logical and hot-topic issues. "Reggie Bush has had a successful carrier" is automatically limited scope, because very few people would want to debate that resolution as a whole. LD topics, on the other hand, carry weight and are easy to find evidence for, rather than an opinionated statement.

2) LD would appeal to LD debaters as a whole. Knowing from personal experience, it's hard to debate on this site in that format because no one either 1) Wants to or 2) Even knows how to. You'd attract LD debaters all over looking for a site just like this, but with the actual structure, to debate in their preferred style. So the scope will actually increase!

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

Now, on to my own arguments.

1) LD Is Structured
Structure is one of the biggest things lacking on Debate.org. It's hard to do quite a few things. Amongst many others, it's hard to structure and properly refer to arguments, weigh them to judge who won the round, or even common civility and evidence. Because Debate.org lacks these resources, debating in a LD format would bring a lot of ease of use to its users.

2) LD Is Commonly Used and Desired
Like I already brought up, a lot of debaters who debate LD style want somewhere to practice. I myself want to do exactly that. If a website like Debate.org uses specifically LD style, you're going to attract a lot of those debaters. Moreso, a lot of people want the structure and therefor, it's preffered.

Again, thank you for accepting the debate, and I await your response.
pcmbrown

Con

I was not referring to Policy, but Public Debate http://en.wikipedia.org...

1) My opponent fails to warrant LD's ease of coordination
2) My opponent states that he cannot prove LD's superiority over these other forms. Therefore, this restriction is biased and without reason.
3) We are debating whether or not LD should be the exclusive debate.org format.

1) a) Live chat will be unsuccessful given that opponents are often not online at the same time. This would also complicate voting. b) A forum used for questioning would take a vast amount of time, for the reason I have listed above.
2) Public can be run far more easily.
3) Cross-ex is not present in Public Debate.

1) By instituting a purely LD system, we narrow the debate topics to those few presented by the NFL each year, rather than the many currently on this site.

2) LD debaters can utilize this site in order to develop argumentation. If the need to debate in this format is entirely necessary, another site should be created.
--------------

Now, on to my opponents arguments.

1) LD Is Structured
Evidence, contention numbering, and impact calculus can easily be achieved on debate.org.

2) LD Is Commonly Used and Desired
Debate.org is a forum in which persons of various backgrounds may argue a variety of topics. Restriction to only LD debaters will limit this vast educational opportunity.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
dobsondebator

Pro

**Check the summary at the end for a re-cap of what's going on in this debate.**

Well let's start by saying Public Debate isn't part of the National Forensics League, so how am I supposed to even use this?

1) The reasons I provide are listed throughout the last argument post.
2) I'm showing that all are equal; that any of them can be preferred. But as I elaborate in my third argument, I show that LD is all we're looking at in this round, so we can't prove other debates as better.
3) Exactly, we're not trying to prove OTHER debates as superior, just LD. It's the only thing we need to worry about in this round.

At this point, my opponent has dropped his first observation about trying to prove LD superior to all debates, because he says that LD is the one we're debating.

Now, on to the cross-ex argument.

1) Live chat would be very successful considering that opponents still have to be on within a certain time frame (i.e. 48 hours, etc_. This instantaneously shortens the window of time and makes a run-in much more likely. My opponent's argument of "complicating voting" is completely unwarranted, not to mention not even elaborated. A forum, again, would be even more logical because opponents still have to be on within a short time frame in order to post arguments.
2) This argument is unwarrented or even explained, so drop this argument.
3) We're not trying to prove Public Debate, and like you said yourself, "we're only looking at LD debate."

Now, on to the next arguments presented, about limiting the scope of debate.

1) My opponent says that we're limited to only NFL topics per year, which isn't true at all. We can go back in time to past LD topics, look at the future topics, etc. So we're not limited to 6 topics a year, but actually have quite a few to choose from. My opponent completely ignores the point that LD topics are useful and carry weight, so this is something you're going to vote off of. Even more over, you can create any topic you desire and simply use LD debate formatting to debate it! For example, during the off-season at our school, we're using a made-up topic to keep debaters working, so you're not limited on topics at all.

2) They sure can use it to develop argumentation; however, without a structure, it's difficult, if not impossible, because everything is so un-orderly. Rather than creating another site, like my opponent suggests, it'd be much easier to just modify this site because we can just tack-on to the framwork that's already present.

-----------

1) LD is Structured
Alright, so is my opponent states that there are already quite a few things that we can do "LD Style" on Debate.org. So is my opponent saying that we already have LD in place? In which case, you'd have to vote affirmative by default. But even so, this doesn't argue against my case whatsoever, so my first argument already extends through the round and will become a voting issue.

2) LD is Commonly Used
My opponent is completely correct in his claim that many people argue many things on Debate.org. However, from my personal experience, the vast majority of debaters here are LD. For example, myself. Restricting to LD debaters, like I stated previously, will attract MORE debaters, and this point is completely un-refuted by the opposition. So again, this point is extended and will become another voting issue to vote PRO.

-----------

So what do we see in this round so far? We see a couple things:

1) The argument about functionality.
On both sides, you see arguing whether or not using LD debate would be functional on Debate.org. There's the question of cross-ex, speech ordering, etc.

But, you see that the CON side has agreed that Debate.org already carries many of the tasks of LD debate! Quoting my opponent, "Evidence, contention numbering, and impact calculus can easily be achieved on debate.org." So that solves that argument right away.

The question of cross-ex is simple: live chats, forum posting, are all very reasonable and very functional. The CON argues that there would never be a simultaneous gathering of the debaters in order for this to work efficiently, however, the PRO shows that because the window of time is shortened because of argument posting, this is much more likely.

2) Appeal to the masses
This topic arose because of the many number of Lincoln Douglas debaters that wanted their debate to be used on Debate.org, without having to worry about people corrupting that. And because of that appeal, the PRO argues that Debate.org would attract more debaters because of that special feature.

The CON doesn't argue much in return, simply that the topics would be limited and thus, the debates. The PRO comes back and states that there are both past, present, and future topics that can be used, so we're not really limited. Moreso, the PRO argues that we can create topics and use LD formatting to debate them, so this isn't a limitation at all.

-------
Who to vote?

It's clear, right off the bat, to vote PRO because of the fact that not only is the CON arguing that LD is perfectly capable on Debate.org, but because of the fact that it appeals to the masses. So we've already met the criteria in this round, so you can only vote PRO in this debate. Thank you.
pcmbrown

Con

1. "Well let's start by saying Public Debate isn't part of the National Forensics League, so how am I supposed to even use this?"

I don't believe that the National Forensics League has any relation to debate.org. Additionally, Public Debate is a perfectly legitimate format used in several states.

For my opponent to prove the resolution, it is necessary for him to demonstrate that LD is indeed, the best form of debate. Why would we institute a mandatory LD format, if superior alternatives exist?

2. A "run-in" is rather improbable. It is fairly unlikely for two opponents to coincide during a 48 hour period. LD cross-examination requires numerous questions and follow-up questions. This cannot be achieved during a 48 hour period.
Often, cross-examination is used to examine flaws in an opponent's case, and is therefore a key part of argumentation. Voting would be complicated by the need to read said forum or chat, another example of why LD is not the style best suited to debate.org.

3. LD debate formatting restricts topics to those to which a value and criterion may be applied. This limits topics to those which concern values, rather than debates about economics, sports, etc. These weighty topics can already be discussed on this site. It is not difficult to find similarly inclined LD debaters. If there is truly a need for a purely LD site, it can be created independently, leaving debate.org for those who see debate as something not restricted to high school competition.

Pro Case
1) LD is Structured
My opponent is proposing a total restriction to LD format. I am arguing that LD format, along with other formats, can be achieved on debate.org, as is.

2) LD is Commonly Used
This site, as a debate forum, already attracts LD debaters, as they can, in fact, debate in an LD format if they wish. Yu have provided no evidence that LD debaters compose the majority of this site.

-----------

Summaries

1) The argument about functionality.
"But, you see that the CON side has agreed that Debate.org already carries many of the tasks of LD debate! Quoting my opponent, "Evidence, contention numbering, and impact calculus can easily be achieved on debate.org." So that solves that argument right away."
Because debate.org already has these capabilities, it can accommodate both LD, and non-LD debates.

2) Appeal to the masses
"The CON doesn't argue much in return, simply that the topics would be limited and thus, the debates. The PRO comes back and states that there are both past, present, and future topics that can be used, so we're not really limited. Moreso, the PRO argues that we can create topics and use LD formatting to debate them, so this isn't a limitation at all."
LD formatting cannot be applied to all debates.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
dobsondebator

Pro

1) My opponent again mentions Public Debate, but again fails to even define what it is, why it's significant, why it should be prefered, or any corolation to the debate whatsoever. So there's no real reason to look at public debate in this round.

My opponent has still created an unfair burden, to prove LD as superior. The fact is, I just have to show that it should be used on Debate.org; the resolution doesn't state, "Debate.org ought to us Lincoln Douglas formatted debate over all other forms of debate." In that case, I would have to prove LD superior, but I don't in this round.

2) On to the question of cross examination. I stated that a run-in would be highly probably because of the shortened time, my opponent offers no warrent as to that it won't happen in response. Argument posting times could be required to be shortened in order to make it more probably. And, like I mentioned before, a forum board can be used if a run-in doesn't occur.

My opponent still doesn't refute the point that we can always do without Cross-ex, but even if we do need it, it's plenty possible to do. As per voting, judges for LD rounds are told to never vote primarily off of the Cross-ex alone; it's the arguments that's the meat of the debate.

3) My opponent refutes argument three by saying that LD is limited to topics that a value and critereon can be applied to. This isn't true at all. I can apply a value and criterion to just about anything. Like the resolution my opponent suggested in his last round, "Reggie Bush has had a successful carrier". I can value Career Success and use a criterion such as Overall Performance. There's no limitation on value structures. But furthermor, I argue that it's because Debate.org is mostly ready for LD as it is, it's easier for everyone to just modify this site and then create another site, because it would create less work.

----------
1) LD Is Structured
My opponent is completey correct when he says Debate.org is capable of LD debate as it stands right now. Which is why you must vote PRO for two reasons.

1. Because Debate.org can carry it out right now, you must now make LD Debate required. That's the next step to ensure anyone who wants to debate LD WILL debate LD, rather than running into people who just want to rebel from what you've proposed.
2. Because Debate.org can carry LD out right now, you must simply use Debate.org over other websites or creating another because it takes a lot of work to create such a complicated site; however, Debate.org as a whole isn't too difficult.

2) LD is Commonly Used
My opponent claims I have no statistic that composes the majority of this site; however, he said literally the sentence before "This site, as a debate forum, already attracts LD debaters." My opponent has already conceded to this fact as true because he uses it himself; therefor, your only option is to agree with the PRO. It's because LD debaters come to this site that you must require LD format to be used, simply because it will not only attract more LD debaters, but because it will make your debaters happier.

---------
Summary

To clarify, these weren't really attacks. They're more just neutral summaries and not independent arguments. But for those two key arguments, you clearly see the PRO side of the debate is winning and therefor, you must vote PRO.

Thank you for your time and reading the debate.
pcmbrown

Con

1. I provided a link which fully defines Public Debate. Its superiority (online) lies in its lack of cross-ex. It also appeals to the layman as a judge and debater.

The burden is in no way unfair. My opponent believes that we ought to use the LD format exclusively. Therefore, he must demonstrate why LD should be chosen from the multitude of debate formats, and the others banned. He has not done this.

2. It is my opponent's responsibility to provide a warrant that run-ins would be universal. I have stated that, within a 48 hour period, the opportunity for cross-ex would be unlikely. I have also negated the concept of a cross-ex forum.

Yes, judges must not vote "exclusively" off cross-ex. However, cross-ex is a key part of the debate, and should be present in voting. A skilled LD debater utilizes cross-ex as a tool to present flaws in an opposing argument.

3. Perhaps the value structure is applicable to any debate. However, it is largely incomprehensible to the layman, which ultimately reduces the appeal, and usage of debate.org.

We ought create a new site because the current population of debate.org would be under-served by an exclusively LD system.

Aff Case:
1. a. People who wish to debate LD will debate LD, this is self-evident. Debate.org does not prevent LD debater from debating in LD format, nor does it bar non-LD debaters from debating as they wish.

b. My opponent does not show why the site must be confined to LD.

2. I do not concede this "fact". Yes, LD debaters are attracted to this site, because they can debate in an LD format, if they wish. However, they in no way compose the majority.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
dobsondebator

Pro

I'm going to address the arguments in the order my opponent presents them, then give you reasons why you must vote PRO.

1) Public Debate
My opponent states that he's already defined what Public Debate is. There's two problems with this claim. First, he never defined it himself; which is key to his own understanding as well as mine. But more importantly, the only attempt he actually makes at defining it is a link to Wikipedia, which we can question the legitimacy of right off the bat. Either way, it's unfair for my opponent to come back in his last speech and define it for the debate, because I can't respond to it.

Either way, we have to look at Lincoln Douglas debate regardless of what's superior in the round. I've already presented reasons why we must prefer LD already: such as it's not a team event (1 on 1) and it's more formatted than any other debate.

2) Cross Ex
Again, there's a multitude of ways to carry this out. In terms of this argument, the debate hasn't gone too far. I've already presented the fact that within a 48 hour period (even shorter for some debates) it is statistically logical to claim that a run-in is bound to occur. Times can be scheduled out to urge this run-in between debaters; whatever's necessary to get it to happen.

And like my opponent agrees, no judge should vote solely off of cross-ex. It's only useful to the debaters, and therefor not a voting issue, so we can do without. Because each debater is equally disabled by not having cross-ex, it's completely ok to do without.

3) Value Structures
My opponent is right when he states that values are "largely incomprehensible to the laymen." But like I've stated countless times before, it's because Debate.org would use LD format that would attract more LD debaters, and make up for this loss of appeal. Either way, a laymen could still preform his way of debating. I myself in rounds is more of a laymen than a value debater; my coaches tell me that time after time.

We still need to change Debate.org for LD rather than creating a new one because it's easier to change the site than it is to create one. I've already brought this point up countless times before and it goes completely un-refuted. My opponent argues the opposite but doesn't offer any warrent whatsoever, so my method must be preferred. We'll show how this is important later on.

---------
AFF case:

1) My opponent argues that Debate.org, as-is, doesn't prohibit using LD. That's the inherit problem with Debate.org as it stands today. Because people don't have to use LD, they don't have to debate as the other debater does, which creates quite a few problems within debates. I've seen it countless times before, as in this debate: http://www.debate.org...

For this reason, we must confine Debate.org to LD.

2) My opponent admits to the fact that LD debaters exist on Debate.org. In fact, he'd be lying if he said they don't, because he himself has participated in an LD debate here: http://www.debate.org...

We would not only make current LD debaters happy, but also attract more, because Debate.org would appeal to those debaters out there.

----------

So what should we vote PRO for? Keep in mind that it's unfair for my opponent to "attack" these points because I can not respond, nor address his voter points either. So let's let the judges decide which ones are legitimate.

1) Debate.org attracting more people
Because you now have LD as required, you're going to appeal to those debaters and thus, the popularity of Debate.org as a tool or practice for those debaters goes up. This doesn't go strongly refuted throughout the round, so you have to carry this through as true.

2) LD makes Debate.org more civil/formatted
Basically, because LD is formatted and has rules, you're going to create uniformaty throughout the site. This goes COMPLETELY unrefuted so you have to accept this as true.

3) Cross ex is entirely possible
I present countless options as to this throughout the round, such as forums, live chats, scheduling these times, a more likely run in, etc etc. Because it's possible, and because Debate.org can easily format to it, you have to see LD as completely probably on Debate.org.

4) Debate.org CAN and OUGHT TO be adapted to LD formatting
Two points to this. First, Debate.org, as I've presented earlier, is entirely capable of formatting to LD, like as in cross-ex. Even more, my opponent agrees to this by stating "Evidence, contention numbering, and impact calculus can easily be achieved on debate.org" and "This site, as a debate forum, already attracts LD debaters, as they can, in fact, debate in an LD format if they wish. " So Debate.org right off the bat can do it.

But like I presented before, Debate.org OUGHT to because not only are there LD debaters here now, but because it would attract more due to the fact that it would appeal strictly to LD debaters. Heck, I can even say that you would educate people on the formatting of LD and more people would actually become LD debaters, which is great for the education of our youth.

-------
So for those reasons, you must vote PRO. I'd like to thank my opponent for a very fun an educational debate; this topic is just as exciting now as when I created it a week ago. Thank you!
pcmbrown

Con

1. True, I did not define Public Debate myself. This would have taken an unessecary amount of time, when the parameters of said debate are explained by Wikipedia. Please note that I presented this definition in the SECOND round. My opponent has had plenty of time to address this point. However, he has not done so. Therefore, since my opponent cannot prove LD superior, there is no reason to restrict debate on debate.org to this format, excluding other formats.

"I've already presented reasons why we must prefer LD already: such as it's not a team event (1 on 1) and it's more formatted than any other debate."

My opponent had not presented the 1 on 1 argument until the final round. Please disregard this. My opponent fails to warrant "more formatted". All debates are equally formatted. Again, my opponent cannot show LD to be superior, so his argument falls.

2. I restate that cross-ex would be logistically impossible. My opponents suggestions are implausible and unwarranted. I want to re-emphasize that cross-ex is a voting issue, and therefore essential to LD.

3. LD debaters are already attracted by this site. They are free to debate as they wish. However, this change would force laymen to leave the site. They cannot "preform (their) way of debating" as this resolution would restrict the format to LD. The ease of altering this site is beside the point. The alteration is uneccessary.

AFF

1. This problem is extremely rare, and entirely outweighed by my impacts.

2. LD debaters exist on debate.org. However, they do not compose the majority of users. This change would alienate the majority, certaintly a negative impact.

VOTERS

1. This would alienate all laymen on this site. As they compose the majority of this site, this would have severe negative repercussions.

2. LD is possible on debate.org. Those who wish to use this format may do so. The site does not prohibit LD debaters in any way.

3. Cross-ex is essentially impossible

4. LD is in no way superior to other forms of debate. Therefore, there is no reason to prefer it.

Thank you for the debate, and thanks for reading. I urge a vote in the Contradiction.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by heyitsjay 8 years ago
heyitsjay
From my point of view, LD can complicate things to an unnecessary level. Another thing. These debates and many others on this site are not whether one person is right or wrong, it is all public opinion. I personally believe that in an opinion based argument, there really is no winner or loser. It just so happens that most of the people agree with one person's perspective.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
On that point we can agree, then.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I apologize if you misconstrued my comment as an attack against you, alto, I respect you as both a debater and judge. My comment attacked only voters who vasilate according to comments without reading the debate.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
PS- I did vote on the flow, sirs. I read the entire debate prior to doing so, and explained myself to the point where that should be more than apparent.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I am not absolutely sure why all of the sudden my voting rationale is being attacked by cocky LD debaters, but I don't tell people how to vote. I merely explained my RFD and replied to some comments on the debate.

Pardon me for exercising my rights per the TOS.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I gave Dobson all the points I fairly could, and I am impartial since I am one of the only ones who voted solely on what happened in-round, not whatever alto says.
I can't give dobson all points, but I gave agreement and arguments.
I considered giving you spelling because of the way you spell therefor, but I decided to keep it even like most.
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
Thank you alto.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Well, dobson, my RFD pretty clearly lays out my vote. That, and I've been a strict, respected flow judge in the Northwest for 8 years...

My other comments are based on my knowledge of LDV as well as my commitment to debate and my knowledge of debate, which could be said to be of expert level.

Is that enough of a warrant?
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
Now are these decisions based off of personal opinion, or the debating itself? Keep that in mind when you vote...
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Unless, of course, you were talking about an implied structure, which I think I missed :) Pardon my possible misinterpretation. However, I would then maintain that you can read a value structure into any form of debate if you really wanted to, which makes the argument a total wash in terms of the superiority of LD over other forms.

Hence, still not a reason to prefer LD format on the website. :)
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by danhep 2 years ago
danhep
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con brought up how many people here are debating, but aren't in a forensics league - this put him ahead in the scope argument
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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 MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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 Agnostic 8 years ago
Agnostic
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by happypanda 8 years ago
happypanda
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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 Larsness 8 years ago
Larsness
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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 slobodow 8 years ago
slobodow
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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 Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
dobsondebatorpcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33