The Instigator
Olhando
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Protagoras
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Debate.org should have a message system so members can communicate more efficiently.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 6/16/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,741 times Debate No: 4425
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (13)

 

Olhando

Pro

Hello all, I'm bored here so I thought I'd think about ways to change our site.

1- By having a message system, like Myspace or Facebook - as in mail / comments - members will have access to better communication.

2- This will help spand out ideas. Friends can talk about a debate without it being posted on the debates comments, saving room and time.

3- The system will also be similar in the way that you can approve or deny a comment, so no slander will be shown.

4- It will make the site more dynamic. It will have more features, and thus be more fun.

In conclusion, if pro wins we should all message the admin's and have this done

What do you guys think?
Protagoras

Con

Good luck Olhando, but I am afraid it is my duty to point out the flaws within your plan.

-FIRST POINT:

• This is simply the format in which the message system will appear.
• Arguing the format of something that should not exist is unnecessary.
• THEREFORE, I will not argue this point directly at this moment.

-SECOND POINT:

-----ENHANCES CHEATING-----

• My opponent's plan would make sharing arguments significantly easier.
• Private message systems would make planning to collectively vote AGAINST someone they dislike more attainable.
• THEREFORE, my opponent's plan would enhance cheating.

-----DEFEATS THE PURPOSE-----

• This plan would allow for more personal communication and building friendships.
• The point of this site is to debate.
• THEREFORE, my opponent's plan defeats the purpose of this site.

-THIRD POINT:

-----EFFICIENCY-----

• The new system wants to solve slander on this site.
• Problems regarding slander could be solved simply by alerting the webmaster to keep a closer eye on comments.
• The latter takes less work in order to solve the same problem THUS the latter is more efficient.

-----SOLVABILITY-----

• This new system doesn't solve slander that occurs on the debate page.
• This system couldn't solve the problems of slander on the debate page because the question of, which debater has the power to delete?
• THEREFORE, the power to delete should lay SOLELY in the hands of the webmaster.

-FOURTH POINT

-----HUGE ASSUMPTION-----

• The new system would have more features.
• More features does not always mean more entertainment.
• THEREFORE, the system is not more fun.

-----FALLACIOUS-----

• There is a logical analysis that states: "Quality over quantity".
• My opponent advocates the opposite.
• THEREFORE, my opponent's fourth point is logically unsound.

_________________________________

I am more than willing to offer examples and explanations in order to clarify, if needed. As of now, this is enough information for one to negate the topic and vote CON.

Thank you for this opportunity,

-Protagoras of Abdera
Debate Round No. 1
Olhando

Pro

Protagoras, I am pleased with your response, though I plan to reprove my point in regards to your arguments. Prepare yourself.

1 - "Arguing the format of something that should not exist is unnecessary"

Here Con is arguing that this system SHOULD NOT exsist. First off, I would like to use a tactic from my last debate. Who is anyone to decide what or what not we SHOULD do? Should --> implying Correctness. So is con arguing that Communication is Wrong? Obviously this is ludacrious and voters should see that this point has been negated.

2- "-----ENHANCES CHEATING-----"

When looking over Con's argument he states arguments will be easier to share. That is in fact, the point! Presumably, members should be allowed to expand thier horizons. Whether it be through Google, or Debate.org itself.
"collectively vote AGAINST someone they dislike more attainable."
As of now, we can achieve this in the comments section. Actually, we do. Many people write, "Vote Con/Pro", though this is just a suggestion.
If con is suggesting that having a message system will increase our troubles of something like 'online debate gangs voting for one another', if you will, I say that this is an issue of perception. How can you prove people will be voting out of friendship?
Addtionally, BECAUSE we are on the internet, there is NOTHING to stop us looking up any argument. The tools are already in place! Obviously people dont abuse it, OR they do, regardless we cannot accuratly determine who IS cheating and who is not.

3- "• This plan would allow for more personal communication and building friendships.• The point of this site is to debate. • THEREFORE, my opponent's plan defeats the purpose of this site."

First off, this is an online community. People are already creating relationships, mostly negative. Debate is MUCH different from ARGUMENT. The connotations one assume is that Debate is positive, exploring ideas and trying to prove points, ARGUMENT are malcious, somewhat uncoordinated, and when people are frustrated they often disagree simply because they are pissed.
My plan actually is too ENHANCE the purpose of this site. Expand the accessible information for debates. Simply because one can plagarize anothers work does not mean we should not communicate, Like earlier stated:
All the information is already out there, people can already cheat and plagiarize. If anything, this expands the chances for both sides.

4- "The new system wants to solve slander on this site."

Not solve, but by controling your comments (on your page keep in mind) you are able to thwart out slander yourself. Who will have control over the debate comments? No one, I mean comments in terms of your own page.
Much like the Blogs on Myspace, the primary user gets control of those.

"• Problems regarding slander could be solved simply by alerting the webmaster to keep a closer eye on comments.
• The latter takes less work in order to solve the same problem THUS the latter is more efficient."

- It is already the Webmasters job to ensure the Terms and Conditions are put into place. Though it is NOT more efficent to have a webmaster check everyones personal page. It would be much more realistic for users to choose there own comments.

"This new system doesn't solve slander that occurs on the debate page."
-I only said that comments should be used much like a Myspace page <- A personal avenue.
I agree with Con that the Webmaster decides whats on a debate page. That is their job.

5- "The new system would have more features. More features does not always mean more entertainment. • THEREFORE, the system is not more fun."
I agree to disagree on this. More features does not always mean more fun, HOWEVER:
The purpose of this site is to debate for fun. Thus, by expanding ways to debate, we are expanding ways to have fun. Con says that "More features does not always mean more entertainment"- Like I said, true, but NOT in this case.

6- There is a logical analysis that states: "Quality over quantity".
• My opponent advocates the opposite.• THEREFORE, my opponent's fourth point is logically unsound."

The logical analysis Con uses only works if we think in terms of subjectivness of users. Some users MAY think the 'quality of our system' (2 message systems: Debates / Debate Comments) is acceptable and performs well. Then again, we can use this logical reasoning and see how it does not work in all situations, like this, others MAY think that we only need 1 of these systems, because both are bad, and taking away quantity will improve quality. This is obviously wrong, just because we take away one bad thing does not make another good.

In terms of Myspace - Messages and Comments are VERY popular. So I am generalizing when i say it will 'be more fun'. I am JUSTIFIED in this because, in a democracy, Majority rules, and the Majority (as in myspace/facebook/msn groups) enjoy those luxuries rather then having a hell of a great Blog System, or a fantastic bulliten generator.

Voters and Con-

As you can see I have restated my case in terms of the arguments presented, and it stills holds true.

Thus:

Debate.org should have a message system so members can communicate more efficiently.

Vote Pro.
Protagoras

Con

Olhando, thank you for responding with urgency. I plan to further refute your plan in regards to your arguments. You should prepare yourself as well. :)

I will only address the arguments that my opponent has made, then I will extend the points that he failed to address.

____________________________________

-FIRST POINT:

• Arguing the format of something that should not exist is unnecessary.

Who is anyone to decide what or what not we SHOULD do?

Good question. My opponent states that no one has the right to imply correctness, but this would be hypocritical on his behalf. The topic reads, "Debate.org SHOULD have a message system", therefore, using my opponent's logic, since we cannot accept a statement that implies correctness, we must negate the topic.

So is con arguing that Communication is Wrong?

The question mark was intended for signifying uncertainty, I am NOT arguing that communication is wrong categorically, my arguments are intended to be against the matter at hand, the message system.

____________________________________

-SECOND POINT:

-----ENHANCES CHEATING-----

• My opponent's plan would make sharing arguments significantly easier.

"When looking over Con's argument he states arguments will be easier to share. That is in fact, the point!"

This point is called cheating. The purpose of this site is for the contender to use his research ability's as well as his own knowledge in order to debate. IF said contender can just get all of his arguments from someone else, without any work, that would be cheating because instead of it being a one-on-one debate, it would become a two-on-one.

• Private message systems would make planning to collectively vote AGAINST someone they dislike more attainable.

"How can you prove people will be voting out of friendship?"

The remark that I made in regard to people collectively voting against someone is known as a group tactic that already occurs on this site. This is not an assumption. Look at Logical-Master for example, a group of people disliked him so they voted against EVERY one of his debates. This would make that same movement just a little more sophisticated and more attainable. My opponent could argue that this is unlikely, but you must recognize that this message system would do nothing but enhance that possibility of occurrence.

"...there is NOTHING to stop us looking up any argument. The tools are already in place!"

This is true. But, I don't think my opponent understands the difference between researching and blatantly cheating. Using Google and various other websites is not considered cheating, because they are not giving you specific arguments, they are there for research purposes, unlike a human being whom has the capabilities to read the arguments and feed you specific responses.

-----DEFEATS THE PURPOSE-----

• This plan would allow for more personal communication and building friendships.

"First off, this is an online community. People are already creating relationships, mostly negative."

I agree, BUT this still doesn't assert my point about how MORE personal communication would occur, and as my opponent conceded, this would create MORE negative relationships. Essentially, his movement would enhance the negative aspects of this site.

• The point of this site is to debate.

"My plan actually is too ENHANCE the purpose of this site. Expand the accessible information for debates."

I would assume that my opponent is associating a positive connotation behind his meaning of enhancing. But, as I previously stated, this "easily accessible information" would be a nicer way to term cheating.

"Simply because one can plagiarize another's work does not mean we should not communicate"

I respectfully disagree, plagiarizing is an EXTREMELY negative part of this site, and in no way should it EVER be accepted, NOR enhanced.

______________________________________

-THIRD POINT:

-----EFFICIENCY-----

• The new system wants to solve slander on this site.

"Not solve, but by controlling your comments (on your page keep in mind)"

But, without this plan, slander would be solved COMPLETELY, because comments would not be allowed on your personal page. Control OR Solve? I'd chose the latter.

• Problems regarding slander could be solved simply by alerting the webmaster to keep a closer eye on comments.

"Though it is NOT more efficient to have a webmaster check everyone's personal page"

Please disregard this statement, I was speaking in regards to the debate page, the "comments on personal pages" idea, is not efficient, as it would mean every member would be responsible for making sure people do not post slanderous remarks

-----SOLVABILITY-----

• THEREFORE, the power to delete should lay SOLELY in the hands of the webmaster.

"I agree with Con that the Webmaster decides what's on a debate page. That is their job."

This is mark of concession. Thank you Olhando. Not that this really makes much of an impact.

______________________________________

FOURTH POINT:

-----HUGE ASSUMPTION-----

• More features does not always mean more entertainment.

"I agree to disagree on this. More features does not always mean more fun."

This is another mark of concession.

"The purpose of this site is to debate for fun."

Another mark of concession.

"Thus, by expanding ways to debate, we are expanding ways to have fun"

TRUE. But, a new messaging system is not another way to debate, it is simply another form of communication. There is a difference.

-----FALLACIOUS-----

• There is a logical analysis that states: "Quality over quantity".

The logical analysis Con uses only works if we think in terms of subjectivness of users.

Therefore, it is my opponents burden to prove that the majority of the users would enjoy this added feature.

"In terms of Myspace - Messages and Comments are VERY popular."

Myspace is VERY popular, period. That is definitely something I would agree with. BUT, the people here on debate.org share contrasting views from the majority of myspace users. People come here to debate, not to enjoy casual conversation. The need to converse is already satisfied through the comments section.

"I am JUSTIFIED in this because, in a democracy, Majority rules, and the Majority (as in myspace/facebook/msn groups)"

Yes, majority DOES rule. But, my opponent is comparing the views of myspace/facebook users in order to determine what we should have on this debate site. This, once again, defeats the purpose. Eventually, this site would become a "myspace that happens to have a debate corner".

______________________________________

Voters please extend the following arguments:

• My opponent's plan would enhance cheating.
• My opponent's plan defeats the purpose of this site.
• The power to delete should lay SOLELY in the hands of the webmaster.
• The system is not more fun.

I feel as if these arguments have been best upheld on my behalf. These are CRITICAL fallacies inherent within my opponent's purposed plan.

THUS, I beseech you to vote CON.

-Protagoras of Adbera
Debate Round No. 2
Olhando

Pro

Thank for a very interesting debate so far! As this is the last round I urge you to read carefully.
___________
1.Good question. My opponent states that no one has the right to imply correctness, but this would be hypocritical on his behalf.

-Ah but in this case we do. Though my logic seems hypocritical it actually is different in stance. When using should in "Debate.org SHOULD have a message system", we are not speaking about you or me, people with free will, but about an online entity.
-As they teach in the workplace: 'The customer is always right.' This applies directly to our situation here on debate.org. We pay by investing time and clicking adds, and our product is forums to debate.
-So in my resolution "Debate.org SHOULD have a message system", my logic does not fail because it doesnt apply to changing an individuals mind, removing freewill.
_____________
2. This point is called cheating.

As stated before, (and which I clarify below as well), the tools are already with us. We can already search debate topics and successfully STEAL another debate. It is already up to debaters to combat against plagiarized work.

2a. "...group tactic that already occurs on this site..This would make that same movement just a little more sophisticated and more attainable..enhance that possibility of occurrence."

-As Con clearly states, this already occurs. Even if my plan increased, say, the speed of people voting against someone by letting one message eachother fast, it could have occured anyways. I can create 20 accounts and vote for myself every debate, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt have free sign ups. For all we know, these debaters who vote for eachother could all be the same person.
- I argue that these occurences are just as likely to occur now than when we would have a message system. A new message system could even CUT BACK on these occurences because other member would be able to read others comments, and everyone already has the ability to contact a webmaster.

2b." This is true. But, I don't think my opponent understands the difference between researching and blatantly cheating....unlike a human being whom has the capabilities to read the arguments and feed you specific responses."

-I do understand the difference. It only ISNT plagiarizing if you give the SOURCE INFORMATION. As in debate, it is the DEBATERS responsibility to pick out good information. How so? Asking the opponent, "Where do you get your information?" If they cannot answer, they lose due to breaking debate conduct, plagiarizing or falsifying evidence.
-In regards to if a human being is there reading argument and helping with specific responses, I state this: if there is no way to prove that another is cheating, that person cannot be held responsible. As stated before, it is already assumed in debate that each side will question one another their best, which including making sure background information and evidence is sound.
____________
3. "..my point about how MORE personal communication would occur, and as my opponent conceded, this would create MORE negative relationships. Essentially, his movement would enhance the negative aspects of this site."

-My opponent here is contradicting himself. As I stated many relationships are negative on this site, and my opponent concedes to this himself. THOUGH, he states that many more people will be gaining friendships and helping eachother vote, QUITE the opposite of this statement. How can the majority both be hating itself more and growing more friendships at the same time? Unless Con can prove the valdity of this arugment, as it is his own, is fails and should be seen as negated.

3a. "..this "easily accessible information" would be a nicer way to term cheating." + "I respectfully disagree, plagiarizing is an EXTREMELY negative part of this site, and in no way should it EVER be accepted, NOR enhanced."

-Still so, my argument stands that the information is ALREADY accessible without this plan. Once again, Con states that plagiarzing is ALREADY occuring on this site.
-In terms of this 'information' aspect of this debate I state:
When Con states that this will increase cheating I disagree, it takes EQUAL if not less effort (depending on where your mouse is) to steal an argument off Google then it is to search through debate.org.
IN FACT, if you wanted to, on google, all you do is put your search terms, say, "Senator Mccain does not qualify to be President.", a DIRECT link will be provided to debate.org's page on that very debate. Very easy.

3b. "..NOR enhanced"
By stating that plagiarizing should never be enchanced is saying that information should not be readily accessible. Plagiarizing only occurs if one of free will allows it, therefor, they only enhance it themselves, it is not the sites doing.
___________
4."slander would be solved COMPLETELY, because comments would not be allowed on your personal page. Control OR Solve? I'd chose the latter."

1st - No, it would not. Comments could still be slanderous on the debate page. Comments on your personal page are only considered slander is the PERSON feels it was malicious, thus YOU control what is acceptable on your page. But the debate page is much more broad.

4a. "Please disregard this statement"

Done
____________
5."This is mark of concession...Not that this really makes much of an impact."

You are right, THOUGH to be critical, You stated that is SHOULD be, I stated that it WAS. And concession has such bad connatation, so I thought I'd argue something. This feeling extends to:
"This is another mark of concession."
"Another mark of concession."

"But, a new messaging system is not another way to debate, it is simply another form of communication. There is a difference."

Yes communication and debate are different. However, Can you not debate through messages? In fact, you can. Thus IT IS another way to debate. This argument by Con is flawed.
___________
6."Myspace is VERY popular, period. That is definitely something I would agree with."

-Excatly, why so? Because of all the features, messages, comments, bullitens, blogs. Allow me to use your logic.
Myspace is fun because you can message and comment one another.
Thus, Websites are fun when they have messages and comments.
Therefor, Debate.org will be fun with messages and comments.

And because it ALREADY is fun, it will be MORE fun, as FUN is being added into it.

6a."..the people here on debate.org share contrasting views from the majority of myspace users..People come here to debate, not to enjoy casual conversation. The need to converse is already satisfied through the comments section." + "Eventually, this site would become a "myspace that happens to have a debate corner".

This is a HUGE Assumption by Con. In fact I can disprove satisfaction, myself, a member, is NOT satisfied. And how is he to assume this will be another Myspace? Adding a message system is not making it Myspace Jr., that argument can extand to any site with those features.

TO CON AND THE VOTERS:
• My opponent's plan would enhance cheating. <-- Has been proven wrong: My plan in no way makes it 'subjectivly' EASIER to cheat. It is but a flick of the wrist in any direction to get information on the internet. I'm sure voters can relate to this and see that Con's argument has been proved wrong, and mine withheld.
• My opponent's plan defeats the purpose of this site. <-- This in NO WAY defeats the purpose. The purpose is to debate, and too debate you need information, this is just another avenue.
• The power to delete should lay SOLELY in the hands of the webmaster. <-- CON Restates this yet, it is NOT a topic of debate. This should be disregarded, Con uses this to add on a reason to bulk the look of his stance.
• The system is not more fun. <-- Con argued that my plan is VERY POPULAR among users of other sites. Thus, it is indeed fun.

The Resolution stands.
I urge you to Vote Pro!!
Protagoras

Con

The following rebuttal will contain a respectfully brief, yet concise, overview of the critical arguments that have occurred during this debate.

The first point simply boils down to this:

I don't believe that the message system should exist, call it implying correctness or whatever, BUT, I have justifications for my opinion, therefore I am not ignorant in my position. Furthermore, I do not think that this point should've made as much of a deal as it has thus far. Therefore, I'd like for you to disregard any arguments that have occurred in regards to this first point, they are nonsense, to say the least. I think Olhando would agree.

_________________________

In his second point, I am argue the very fact that his message system would enhance the amount of cheating that occurs on this site. We both agree that this has already occurred, but my opponent never truly asserts the negative impact that would occur in regards to the enhancement of cheating.

My opponent's "cut back" assertion is a stretch, we understand that with his plan you will be allowed the right to delete the 'slanderous' comments on your page, but that doesn't mean it is now easier to detect cheating. A rather incoherent argument if I may.

My opponent also states that he could easily create twenty accounts to receive a similar effect of cheating, but imagine how much more practical it would be for, instead of YOU doing all of the work, you could find three other people and everyone make five account. Arguably, the latter requires much less effort, with the same outcome. THUS, cheating WILL be enhanced.

My opponent even goes so far as stating that cheating ISN'T cheating if you don't get caught! I ask him to reconsider his position if this is his main justification for his advocacy.

Hopefully you will vote CON, as a vote for PRO would be an unethical movement.
_________________________

The third point is essentially an argument regarding the fact that my opponent's purposed plan would implement a "delete button". The same that has been said about his first point can be said about this point as well. Meaning, the PURPOSE of this point is to describe how the message system will be. Basically, "it will allow for comments on the user's personal page, and it will offer you the ability to delete slanderous remarks". I simply argue that this message system shouldn't occur, THUS if I prove the message system shouldn't be implemented, then everything else that is included with the system should not occur either.

You should vote CON, because this point is regarding the details of a system that should not be implemented.

_________________________

The third point is in regards to how more features would equal more fun. My opponent associates this debate site to a social "place for friends". This is clearly incoherent, the intention of this site is to debate. Nothing more. The debating aspect of this site THE fun. If people are dissatisfied with debating, they could easily create a myspace or a facebook account. If my opponent were concerned with, "making the site more dynamic", he could've focused on adding HTML features on the site. (e.g. A way to add bullets, different sized fonts, different styled fonts , etc.) This would clearly enhance the DEBATING aspect of this site, not just the communicating part.

You should vote CON, because I have properly refuted my opponent's analogies.

_________________________

For these reasons, and the reasons previously mentioned, you should vote CON, because I have given you more than enough reasons for as to way you should not accept Olhando's messaging system.

- A slippery slope, turning debate.org into a mini-myspace.
- Significantly enhances cheating.
- and It would not solve issues like slander, which it promises to solve.

GOAL ACCOMPLISHED::

This debate will hopefully allow others to think of new plans, with the consideration of my critique.

I URGE you, the voter, to consider new ways to make this site a better place.

Message THAT to the admin, NOT Olhando's plan.

Vote CON.

Thank you Olhando and voters,

-Protagoras of Abdera
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Olhando 9 years ago
Olhando
If they read it, it was certainly accomplished!

-Olhando
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
I don't really care about the votes. I just wanted people to see both ways of the situation, hopefully that goal was accomplished.

:)
Posted by Olhando 9 years ago
Olhando
Hahaha I kinda like it, Potagoras.
Good luck with the votes to you as well!
Perhaps someday I will be able to message you that response, =D

-Olhando
Posted by KIRA_OKASHI 9 years ago
KIRA_OKASHI
i think that if someone wants to cheat they will.... all it would take is a few comments between two people and you could get eberything you need
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
-Protagoras*

[I spelt my own name incorrectly?, how embarrassing].
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
Good luck with the votes.

P.S.
I will read over everything before I vote, just to be fair.

Thanks!

-Potagoras
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
Thanks. You have precise responses, thanks for giving me a fight.lol.

Looks like my hotel has free wi.fi. :)

Onto the case.
Posted by Olhando 9 years ago
Olhando
I know right? hahaha

Definatly, I give you props! Lol

I'm sure you'll have an even better rebuttal.
I look forward to it,

-Olhando
Posted by Protagoras 9 years ago
Protagoras
For some reason, this was a ridiculously large debate. Content wise. I think I should receive props for coming up with a numerous amount of critiques against your plan. :)

Bravo to your last round Olhando!

...Hopefully, I will be able to respond tommorow afternoon, depends on whether or not my hotel offers free wi.fi.

-Protagoras!
Posted by Olhando 9 years ago
Olhando
wow 8000 characters

my fingers hurt. lol

Best of Luck Protagoras!!!
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 7 years ago
DrAlexander
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 Protagoras 7 years ago
Protagoras
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 9 years ago
Zerosmelt
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 pakipride 9 years ago
pakipride
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 KirkPorter 9 years ago
KirkPorter
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 Rboy159 9 years ago
Rboy159
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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 Recolada 9 years ago
Recolada
OlhandoProtagorasTied
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