The Instigator
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

Debaters should not be given the option of mandating a 5-12 question MC quiz for their debates here.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/6/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,925 times Debate No: 2441
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (16)

 

Logical-Master

Con

Ever since the opening of debate.org, many debaters have felt that faulty voting has been occurring during their debates. Personally, I agree with this and feel that many voters don't even read the debates before voting. In fact, I am inclined to believe that some debaters merely email their friends, have them make debate.org accounts, and vote in favor of all their debates. In today's debate, I am going to advocate the solution mentioned in the topic. It will be my opponent's job to argue against this solution. With that said, let us proceed.

The plan would work rather simply. Before each round, debaters would have the option of creating a Multiple Choice quiz that consist of what the actual information within the round is. Each debater would be allowed to create such quizzes for each round, but would only be allowed to ask a maximum of 12 questions for the entire debate.

In order to vote on debates, voters would have to score a passing grade on the quiz(zes) (keep in mind that both debaters aren't obligated to create a quiz)(what qualified as passing grade would be decided by the debater before each round) provided in order to be qualified to vote.

I advocate that this solution is rather effective as it could (again, initiating these quizzes are optional) coerce voters to actually read and comprehend debates.

With that said, I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal.
Yraelz

Pro

Thanks for the topic Logical, this will be fun as always.

First and foremost I must concede your entire first paragraph to you. I definitely agree that people either:

A. Invite friends just for the purpose of voting on their debates. Those friends in turn don't bother reading the debates.

B. Create multiple accounts under multiple email addresses and rigging the voting system.

And I of course think it is a rather large problem. I also think that perhaps people should not be allowed to close their account but thats a different story.

So first I'm going to cover the problems with your idea and then I'll go on to give my own.

"The plan would work rather simply. Before each round, debaters would have the option of creating a Multiple Choice quiz that consist of what the actual information within the round is. Each debater would be allowed to create such quizzes for each round, but would only be allowed to ask a maximum of 12 questions for the entire debate."

>>The first apparent problem with this is the fact that it would be created before round. Which would mean that the quiz would only be over the first round of debate. Thus all that faulty voters have to do is read the first round of the pro or con and then answer the questions.

>>The second fault would be that it doesn't actually bother solving your problem as outlined in your first paragraph. Let's take a look at your conclusion.

"I advocate that this solution is rather effective as it could (again, initiating these quizzes are optional) coerce voters to actually read and comprehend debates."

>>While yes it could coerce people into actually reading and comprehending the debate it will not coerce them into voting for who they feel won. Instead they will vote for who the came to vote for in the first place and then be mildly annoyed that they had to read it.

Also this obviously doesn't work for my second scenario where debaters create multiple accounts to rig the system either.

So this brings me to the third problem with your idea. That being, to implement your system would take time. It would either come into play along with the next update, which will take longer to be initiated because of this extra idea. Or it would have to come in sometime later.

Thus I will now offer you, and my voters a counter advocacy that will solve your problems (and mine) in a more efficient way.

As the soonest your plan could come into effect would be with the next update I will also be targeting my plan for that time.

My plan is simply this, the next update is going to create the ability to form groups. http://www.debate.org... bottom right hand corner. So I suggest at that time we form a group called "Debate 20" or any other variation with the number 20 in it.

The idea of this group would be simple. To be in the group you need 20 wins/ties (as long as the wins/ties are legitimate). Not exactly a hard feat, you could probably do it easily in a month if you had the time. Within the group we will be able to hold debates that only members of the group can see and vote on. This will solve for all of the disadvantages I already brought up on your case. Being.

1. It would not allow for faulty voters quite as easily as the current system. Voters would have to be somewhat serious debaters who actually took the time to get 20 wins and understand the system well. Creating multiple accounts would be horrifying as one would still have to get the 20 wins. Members of the 20 group would be able to deny access to anybody who looked like they may have created two new accounts and debated them against each other in order to get easy wins. (For example a debate that contained 1000 characters combined would not count as a real win)

2. Once again this problem is solved by the difficulty of getting faulty voters into the system.

3. This will not take any extra time to develop; meaning it won't slow the current update down at all. As the current update it already developing the group idea we won't have to wait any longer for my idea. Yours of course will set back the next update by a little bit.

I advocate that my solution is more effective than my opponents which is not effective, as it is my burden in this round to uphold the resolution -.- . I feel creating a sort of high debate society would not only create a mildly educated community in which to gain feedback on debates and comments but also would be a goal for new debaters to strive towards.

Thanks, I stand open for my opponents speech.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Con

My opponent suggests that the faulty voters would merely have to read the first round to rig the system, but this is incorrect. In my description of the plan, I state that quizzes would be allowed to be created for each round. The voters would have to pass ALL of the quizzes before being allowed to vote.

My opponent aggrees that my plan could coerce people into reading/comprehending the debate, it would not coerce them into voting for the individual who they honestly believed to have won. However, nowhere in my opening argument have I promised that my plan would do that as I don't believe there to be any reasonable means of coercing someone to do such on this website. What my plan does is drastically decrease the chances of voters voting without even being aware of what was being debated. If voters merely wish to come and vote for who they came to vote for in the first place, the debaters can make it very difficult for those kinds of voters through providing the right questions. For if those voters fail the quiz, they don't get to vote. ;)

No, my plan doesn't completely halt those with multiple accounts, but neither does my opponent's plan (more on that later). However, my plan can discourage it as taking a quiz X (the number of accounts) times over will be rather tedious. It will be even more tedious if the debater who makes the quiz decides to make it very difficult for those who haven't read or for those don't COMPLETELY understands the entire debate. Lets not forget that users who have multiple accounts are typically easy to spot as they tend to have the same IP addresses.

As for taking time, I believe it's fair to suggest that my opponent has no knowledge of the inner workings of this website; he does not know the capabilities of the website's administration (not to mention that many online quiz programs are inexpensive or free even for a website of this size). However, my main focus of this rebuttal is the fact that I make no mention of when this program should be accessible within my opening argument. I'm merely advocating that it's a good idea (if you'll notice, I don't urge immediacy). Thus, this is straw man on my opponent's part. Claiming that it will take one 20 minutes to drive to Wal-Mart in no way negates the claim that Wal-Mart lettuce is healthy.

Now let's address my opponent's plan:

The first glaring problem with my opponent's plan is that it only allows debaters with 20 wins/ties to join. This is problematic as MANY (many) debate.org users have not attained that many wins. Many have other activities to attend to. Heck, one of the more skilled debaters of this website (http://www.debate.org... ) has been on this website for months, and yet he doesn't qualify for my opponent's plan. Surely my opponent doesn't intend to uphold the value of time as it will surely take quite a long time for many users of this website to be qualified.

Re #1: Voters: My opponent does my job for me through pointing out the problem with faulty voters. As my opponent suggests, creating faulty accounts and having them debate against one another is quite common on debate.org. That said, my opponent's means of countering these nefarious acts completely defeat the purpose. He suggests that members of the "Debate 20 group" be allowed to decide who is worthy of getting into the group and who is not. If it's up to the members to decide who is worthy of getting in, members could very well keep certain members out on the basis of spite. Not only that, but the idea of members being able to kick someone out of the group on the basis that they THINK someone else has been cheating is truly problematic to the purpose which my opponent wishes to uphold as there are many legitimate cases where members win the kind of debates my opponent mentions.

Re #2 : Through usage of multiple accounts to "win" debates, it is hardly difficult. My opponent suggest a means of preventing such a tactic, but I've already covered the problems with that above.

Re #3: Actually, debaters having to win 20 debates will take quite a long time. Even if we consider what my opponent believes to be a flaw in my plan, all members would have access to it when the program was initiated. As for my opponent's plan, getting access to this group which he proposes would be an inconvenience for many.

Creating my opponent's high debate society sounds nice at first glance, but with the problems mentioned, it will no doubt produce more complaints than what the Debate.org Administration is already receiving; it is far more trouble than it's worth.

I now stand ready for my opponent's second rebuttal (well actually, I'm not really standing, but you get the picture).
Yraelz

Pro

You couldn't just agree with me could you.... Had to start a long drawn out debate about it.

So let me begin by examining your first paragraph in which you state that

"I state that quizzes would be allowed to be created for each round. The voters would have to pass ALL of the quizzes before being allowed to vote."

>>Let us apply this to its fullest potential. 5 round debate, 10 rounds total, 12 questions per round. Voters potentially have to answer 120 questions to be able to vote. Yet you turn around and accuse my plan of being tedious and time consuming. Your plan would discourage legitimate voters from voting. Then you go on in your second paragraph to prove my point with this statement:

"If voters merely wish to come and vote for who they came to vote for in the first place, the debaters can make it very difficult for those kinds of voters through providing the right questions."

>>People who came solely to vote for a friend are not any different than other people. When my opponent says we can make it very difficult for those kinds of voters what he means is that we can make it difficult for every voter. Thus he is actually promoting people with multiple accounts to vote and discouraging legitimate votes. A person with multiple accounts is only going to have to read the debate once before answering the questions and casting multiple votes, legitimate voters are going to have to read it one time per vote. Even if person with multiple accounts has to answer questions multiple times they know what the answers are so it is nowhere near as time consuming.

My opponents third and fourth paragraphs actually help my case, but I will get to that later.

Onto defending my case.

"The first glaring problem with my opponent's plan is that it only allows debaters with 20 wins/ties to join. "

>>Ah this is not a problem at all. It does many good things. First and foremost it functions as an incentive for debaters to get wins so that they my join the group. Secondly it doesn't disallow the debaters in the group from voting on normal debates outside the group. Thus we still have at least some percentage of fair votes going into the entire pool, this will doubtlessly help good debaters gain wins. Third you voice concern that PreacherFred will not be allowed in the group, however when I look at preacherFreds record I notice he has outstandingly won every single debate. What motivation does he have to participate in either of our plans? He seems very content and happy to me.

Onto the three points.

1. Your argument was that if members can simply choose who to kick out they can stop being from joining through spite etc.... However this is where we need to examine what I actually stated in my first argument, being, "Members of the 20 group would be able to deny access to anybody who looked like they may have created two new accounts and debated them against each other in order to get easy wins." Now there is a very easy way to tell if they created two accounts and debated them against each other. This being a quote from your 3rd paragraph.

"Lets not forget that users who have multiple accounts are typically easy to spot as they tend to have the same IP addresses."

>> See the problem with this in your 3rd paragraph is the fact that the administrators have to check over 3000 people, at this point, to see if they have the same IP address. In our group we can mandate everyone uses MSN messenger, G-talk, yahoo messenger etc... and check their IP addresses through command prompt. An easy way to decide if debaters are on multiple accounts or not.

Decisions can also be made on a majority vote, this would negate the idea that members may be disallowed because of spite.

2). My system makes it far more tedious to get faulty voters in than my opponents does. In my opponents system all you have to do is actually read the debate then take the quiz multiple times for each faulty voter. However, faulty voters in my system require that a user goes through the effort of debating himself 20 times in order to be accepted. That is rather tedious if your only motivation is to become a false voter.

3). On my third point your argument is simply that debaters will have to take a long time in order to access my system. However as we can see my system will come into play before your system as you prove in your 4th paragraph when you say,

"if you'll notice, I don't urge immediacy"

thus my plan will come into being beforehand and will start to encourage debaters to win debates long before my opponents tedious system comes into play.

I now sit open for my opponents final round. May it be a good one!
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Con

My opponent's examination of my first paragraph is the straw man fallacy at work. Let's look at the terms I used to describe the quizzes in round 1:

"Each debater would be allowed to create such quizzes for each round, but would only be allowed to ask a maximum of 12 questions for the entire debate."

Pay special attention to the last four words. 120 questions is impossible as I clearly suggest that a maximum of 12 can be utilized for the entire debate.

My opponent then commits the fallacy of non sequitur by concluding that my plan would make it difficult for every voter. My plan makes it difficult for the voters who don't read/comprehend the entire debate. I cited people who rely on their friends because (under the current system) these "friends" don't have to read anything in the debate to vote.

As for multiple accounts, I've already acknowledged that it's still possible. My point is that it's harder to do (especially for the people who didn't debate) since it's not merely a matter of clicking on the voting button. Fortunately, administrators can still act accordingly. My opponent suggests that this (concerning the administrators) point actually supports his, but I'll explain to you why it doesn't later on in this rebuttal. Now, let us proceed by further dismantling my opponent's case.

My opponent responds to my first attack on his plan by listing 2 benefits that the group would bring:

Re First Benefit: My opponent claims it functions as an incentive. This is possible, but it may very well encourage members to rig more votes. After all, winning/tying 20 debates (especially if you don't really have that much time on your hands) is no small feat here. Some individuals don't have as much patience as others and are willing to resort to underhanded methods to attain what they desire. In this case, asking friends to vote on their debates and usage of multiple accounts may very well increase a few levels for those attempting to get into this "20 Debate Group."

Re Second Benefit: My opponent states that it doesn't disallow the debaters in the group to vote on debates outside of the group. Whether or not my opponent's plan was implemented, you'd have this ability with any group.

As for PreacherFred, my point was that people who don't have the time to win 20 debates in the time period which my opponent list will definitely not benefit from this plan any time soon. Although in response to what my opponent said concerning PreacherFred, just reread what my opponent said at the end of round 1.

If my opponent's plan does what it says, then being able to participate in this educated community would be what PreacherFred was missing out on. As for my plan, the motivation is the increase of discussion that concerns his debates. After all, if people are coerced to read/comprehend the debates, they may very well start having more discussions over them. Besides, in my opponent's plan, voters still aren't obligated to read the debates.

Onto the three points:

Re Point 1: First, I'll address the bit about the debate.org administrators.

My opponent suggests that the administrators will have to check over 3000 to see if they have the same IP addresses. He does this to make it seem as if dealing with problems will take quite a long time due to the workload of the administrators.

Firstly, there are around 3450 members on this website (this can be checked upon through going to this page: http://www.debate.org... and counting the number of members accordingly), but if you'll notice, a large percentage of these users have inactive accounts (as in they haven't logged in for weeks or months). Checking to see who has the same IP address is rather simple as it merely requires that the administrators use their own IP address search engine to find out how many times the same IP address pops up. This can be done in seconds/minutes.

Secondly, the administrators are more than capable when it comes to dealing with their workload, as there's the fact that they are able to respond to relevant suggestions/reports promptly (they even provide emails to respond to users on both matters).

More evidence: http://www.debate.org... During this debate, I had sent a message asking if admin could increase the character limit for my debate, and an administrator responded both through email and the comments page rather quickly.

My opponent then suggests that everyone in the "Debate 20 group" could be mandated via messenger programs, but this doesn't change the problem which I brought up.

Firstly, this works outside of debate.org, thus the administrators have no say on this matter. Secondly, who is going to be in charge of IP address investigations? Honestly, without an unbiased party such as the debate.org administrators, kicking someone out on the basis that they "supposedly" have multiple accounts can be used when it comes to vendettas. Since the messenger programs work outside of debate.org, members of this group don't even have to actually check potential members IP address; they can claim that they had a messenger meeting without having actually had one. If they want to let someone who has multiple accounts into the group, it's no problem. If they don't like a particular user and want to keep him/her out of the group, it's again no problem. If a user decides to report this unfairness to the administrators, the administrators won't be able to do anything about it due to investigation being user dominated.

As for creating a majority vote program, this system would fail for two reasons:

1: It would require investigation by all members of this group. In other words, it is an inconvenience and is ideally unlikely that all or even most of the members (assuming my opponent's presumption that that this group would gain a plethora of members is true) would participate.

2: It doesn't eliminate spite at all. Users already vote on these topics out of spite and bias. What would make this poll any different?

Re Point 2: I've added reasons for why getting in with false accounts is simple in point one. Still, I shall address this. Debating with a pseudo-account twenty times won't necessarily require as much time as it would to get into the group by normal means. With pseudo accounts, the debater can make all of his/her debates extremely prompt.

Re Point 3: Irrelevant. As long as a high percentage of members don't have access to my opponent's program when it is initiated, my plan would still be superior to his in this regard as it would be accessible to every member when it was initiated. Furthermore, I also said that installing a quiz program to this website would be quick and inexpensive. My opponent has provided no objection to this. If he does so in round 3, you're obligated to dismiss it since I have had no chance to respond on that matter.

Just because I've stated that I don't urge immediacy, it doesn't mean that my opponent's plan would come before mine. It just means that I don't find the matter of time important.

In the next round, if my opponent attempts to point out any flaw in my plan which he hasn't already brought up, you're obligated to dismiss such an observation. The same goes for advocating any other benefits to his plan. If you don't know the reason for this, I'll be happy to tell you in the comments section.

Closing Statements: Reasons to vote for my case: My plan is instantly accessible to all members of debate.org, it is not governed by biased parties, it greatly reduces the kind of voters who have no idea what they are voting about, and you can always call on the friendly debate.org administrators whenever you run into trouble. My opponent's plan provides you with none of these benefits and may very well prove detrimental to debate.org. Thus, I urge you vote for my case. Thank you.
Yraelz

Pro

Alright final round. First off I'd like to start out for apologizing for my straw-man, I understand what you were saying now. With that out of the way I will be attacking your case and then upholding mine.

First let us once again apply your plan to its fullest potential which would be 12 random questions about a debate. This is still one step more than normal voters have to do now and will deter legitimate voters from voting. Right now legitimate voters read the debate and actually vote on it. Illegitimate voters simply vote on their bias or their friend. Your system hurts legitimate voters while doing nothing to stop illegitimate voters. Voters voting for their friends are still going to do so after you plan is passed. Good voters are simply going to be annoyed that they have to answer 12 questions.

My opponent then tells me this makes it harder for people with multiple accounts to vote but this is not true. Let me put this into perspective. A person with 5 accounts is going to have to read the debate once and fill out 5 identical quizzes in order to vote. Each legitimate voter will have to read the debate once a piece and then fill out the quiz 5 times.

Thus when it comes down to it an illegitimate 5 votes requires 1 reading 5 quizzes where as a legitimate 5 votes requires 5 readings and 5 quizzes; more work. This system makes it mildly harder for legitimate voters to vote and easier for illegitimate voters to.

Furthermore if it is the debater himself/herself making the multiple accounts then he/she doesn't even need to worry about reading it because he/she already did while debating it.

In summary, my opponents plan does not stop illegitimate voting in any way, it simply puts a damper on all of us by making us take a random quiz at the end of every debate we choose to judge.

So now for some defense on my own case.

My opponent begins by stating that while my plan may very well give members incentives to get 20 wins it may at the same time give them incentive to perpetuate the bad voting system in order to get 20 wins. However what you as voters need to keep in mind here is the fact that my opponents plan simply throws up a wall of anywhere between 1-12 questions in order to throw off bad voters. My plan on the other hand throws up a wall of 20 debates, which is mildly more time consuming at the very least and offers the opportunity for such people to lose interest while getting their 20 debates if they are simply illegitimate voters. After all what incentive does in illegitimate voter have in getting into the "debate 20 group". They can win just as well out of it.

My opponents second attack on me was as follows:

"My opponent states that it doesn't disallow the debaters in the group to vote on debates outside of the group. Whether or not my opponent's plan was implemented, you'd have this ability with any group."

and yes, while this is very true I was simply pointing out that my plan could be implemented as a user desired. Much like my opponents plan. Thus in this aspect our plans are equal.

My opponent then brings up PreacherFred once again and attempts to tell me that he will not be able to participate in such a system. However I would like to cross apply my first point, being incentives, to this. In my last speech I said that PreacherFred seems very happy where he is and doesn't mind the bad voters. My opponent never contradicted this but even if he wasn't happy I would like to point out that PreacherFred would thereby have incentive to win 20 debates and join the "debate 20 group".

Thus this leads me to my 3 points on my case that my opponent ruthlessly attacked.

1). My opponent suggests that the administrators of this website can use their own search engines but this is faulty as he has not proven that the administrators have IP search engines in any way. Furthermore even if he wanted to prove such a point my system takes strain off of the web administrators as they no longer have to sift through IP addresses.

He then states that spite could be used just as well in such a situation however this is not true. As I would obviously be the one implementing such a system and I am an un-spiteful person by nature. Thus the system would very little to no spite inherent in it.

Point of offense: The web masters are just as capable of spite as anyone on this site. They can spitefully kick someone off under the pretext that they were using multiple accounts.

Finally my opponent says having a majority voting system for who could be allowed in is just as open to spite. But seeing as I have now dictated myself the one in charge of the IP investigations in response to my opponents questions, "Secondly, who is going to be in charge of IP address investigations?" We can see that this is a moot point, as it has already been done by me.

Therefor my system makes strives to prevent users with multiple accounts where as my opponents system does no such thing.

2). My opponent says that illegitimate voters would have an easier time getting into the system than legitimate voters would but this is where I would like to cross apply my point from earlier. What do illegitimate voters have to gain from my system? Obviously legitimate debaters/voters can join the group in order to have a more educated voting pool but illegitimate voters have nothing to gain. In fact, the voters that are in the debate 20 groups are less likely to vote favorably for an illegitimate debater than those outside of the group. Thus an illegitimate debater is better off outside of the group.

Even if this point didn't exist at all we can still see that my case makes a greater strive to deter illegitimate voters than my opponents case does. 12 questions vs. 20 debates. My case provides illegitimate voters much more hardship than his case.

3). Finally the fact that my plan comes first is not irrelevant as my opponent says, it is simply an added to benefit to why my plan is better.

Considering this is the last round I would like to urge all voters to vote on who they think did the better debating with points in the round as opposed to bias. I would also urge everyone who votes to take a couple moments to give constructive criticism.

Thanks for the debate logical, as always it was amazing.
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
To the guy/gal who just cancelled out all of my stalker's votes on my debates, I thank you for your good intentions. I'm thankful, but [ assuming you didn't read my debates ], I'd prefer you read the debates before voting. That said, I wish you a good night. Hasta lavista. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Yraelz, I've gotten a new debate.org stalker! In honor of this event, he was even kind enough to take the liberty of letting me know who he was before voting against me in nearly all of my debates.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Good thing you have a sense of humor :)
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Lol, nice. I hope he meant he votes against me. Hahaha.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Wait, you vote against Yraelz or you have been voted against (for no good reason)?
Posted by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
Believe me, Miserlou, I do. Two, in fact. It's not fun.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Well that was interesting and I was quite torn, but I had to go with Logcial-Master for debate quality even though I agreed with Yraelz's plan more.

And why would someone vote against you in all of your debates? What a creep
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah, trolls, and I think a great deal of voters treat every single topic as a poll. Without reading it.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Yes, I definately think that influences it. Then there's the matter of how they feel about the debaters. And of course, I believe many just like to troll.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I've given this some thought and I have an interesting theory about some of the voters and their criteria for voting. Do you think the debater's politics or religion play a part in the voters decision?
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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 GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
Logical-MasterYraelzTied
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