The Instigator
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points
The Contender
birdlandmemories
Pro (for)
Losing
46 Points

Derek Jeter's final home game against the Orioles was rigged so that he would hit a walk off

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 21 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,428 times Debate No: 62325
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (108)
Votes (21)

 

imabench

Con

Ladies and Gentlemen, I, the great Imabench, am temporarily returning to DDO temporarily to debate against Birdlandmemories, who on facebook claimed that Derek Jeter's last game against the Orioles at home in Yankee Stadium, was in fact RIGGED so that it would have a happy ending.

I engaged with him on facebook over this topic, admittedly with my usual lack of civility when I see something utterly stupid, and after a while he cowardly blocked me halfway into the argument just so that he could have the last word and falsely claim victory in front of his 'friends'.

And so, I have returned to DDO, for one last debate. I will be arguing AGAINST the claim that Jeter's last home game was rigged, he will be arguing FOR the claim that Jeter's last home game was intentionally rigged.

If he declines this debate or fails to accept it in 2 weeks time, then he will concede that Jeter's last game was NOT rigged, and concede that the claim that the game was rigged is indeed retarded.

First round is acceptance only
4 rounds, full 10,000 character limit

Youre move boy.
birdlandmemories

Pro

Yeah, I accept. Under the consensus that there will be no trolling.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Con

Alrighty then, I'll start.

The game in question is the game that occurred on September 25th between the New York Yankees and the Baltimore Orioles, a game that featured Derek Jeter's last appearance on the field as a Yankee at Yankee Stadium, and a game that happened to end with Derek Jeter hitting in the winning run in the bottom of the ninth inning.

Arguments for why the game wasnt rigged:

1) A conspiracy of this size would be too big to keep everyone involved quiet about it

For an MLB game to be rigged in a way that Derek Jeter would have the game-winning hit in the bottom of the 9th inning, there would have to have been an extensive collaboration of organizations and entities to set it up and keep quiet about it. A conspiracy to rig the end of a baseball game (7th inning to the 9th inning) would have to at the very least involve several players and managers of both the New York Yankees and the Baltimore Orioles, but a conspiracy of this size could very well also involve top level heads of the MLB itself such as Bud Selig, ESPN, any and all advertisers of Jeter and Yankee apparel, the front office administrations and owners of both teams, etc.

No amount of money in the world would be enough to keep everyone quiet, especially since the players of the New York Yankees are known for being almost stupidly over-paid. Several players on the Yankees alone have some of the largest contracts in the history of the MLB, meaning that no amount of money in the world could keep them quiet since all of them not only are making so much money [1], but have also already made so much money [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

A conspiracy of this size would be impossible to keep quiet since so many people involved in it are making/have made so much money. No amount of money in the world could pay so many ridiculously rich people to keep quiet, meaning it would be impossible for a conspiracy to have happened since there is no means for having those involved keep quiet.



2) Its very possible that the events of the game could happen as they did.

Look on any Sportscenter broadcast on any given day during MLB season, and odds are that some team somewhere had a walk-off win. Walk-off wins are incredibly common-place in baseball, and the Yankees and Derek Jeter are no exception. The Yankees this year alone have had 14 walk off wins this year alone [3], and Jeter was hitting pretty well (.353 average with 9 RBI's) in his last few games [4]. Hell, Jeter's own damn nickname is 'Captain Clutch' for coming up big when the game is on the line! [5]

[3] http://www.wjla.com...
[4] http://espn.go.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Its certainly possible for Derek Jeter to have hit the game winning hit through his own talent in his last career home game, and certainly more possible for him to have won the game through his natural talent than an elaborate conspiracy theory that rigged the game for him.



3) The Orioles would never have agreed to throw a game since they still have a lot on the line

For there to have been a conspiracy for Jeter's last home game to be rigged, the conspiracy would have required the consent of the Baltimore Orioles to lose the game, which this late in the season would never have happened since the Orioles are competing for home field advantage.

Following the game against the Yankees, the Orioles were 3 games behind the Angels for the best record in the American League, and the team with the best record at the end of the season winning Home Field Advantage throughout the playoffs, which is a big deal. Since the Orioles lost the game, the only way for them to win home field advantage throughout the playoffs would be if they won all of their remaining games in the regular season, while the Angels would also have to lose all of the games they have left. [6] In other words, it is now almost impossible for the Orioles to win home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

[6] http://www.wjla.com...

So then why would the Orioles agree to throw one of their crucial last games in the regular season and risk losing home field advantage throughout the playoffs, just so that a player on an opposing team could have a memorable last at-bat at home? The Orioles aren't a very wealthy team, but again, no amount of money in the world could get the Orioles to almost certainly lose home field advantage



4) The game was going to be a spectacle no matter what happened.

Jeter's last home game was going to be a huge event for baseball, maybe even bigger than anything that happens in the playoffs. Yankees fans and Jeter fans alike were tuning in to watch Jeter's last game, and thousands of Yankee + Jeter fans would keep snatching up any Jeter merchandise they wanted regardless if Jeter had a good game or not. The Yankees and MLB itself was getting loads of free publicity from Jeter's last home game, probably making a crapload of money from jersey sales as well, and the tv ratings for the last few Yankee home games were huge! [7]

[7] http://www.forbes.com...

So the question is, why would MLB fix a game to be a huge spectacle and event, when the game was ALREADY a huge spectacle? Before Jeter even came up to bat the game was attracting record audiences on tv, and the yankees themselves were already charging huge prices for tickets to the game that were being snatched up [8]. Neither the Yankees nor the MLB would have made substantially more money from rigging the game than they were already making, meaning that they had zero reason for rigging the game in the first place.

[8] http://www.nydailynews.com...



5) Rigging the game would have been a public relations DISASTER for the MLB

Conspiracies of this size tend to be found out almost immediately since almost nothing these days escapes media scrutiny, especially in sports. The MLB itself is still trying to sort out the ongoing steroids problem that plagues the sport, with the biggest scandal in MLB being the biogenesis thing that caused A-Rod to be banned for an entire year.

That was a simple drug conspiracy though, game rigging on the other hand, especially rigging the game of Jeter's last home game as a Yankee, would have been such a controversy that the MLB could NEVER get over it. It would be a conspiracy that would be talked about for a hundred years.....The MLB had far more to lose than they had to gain from rigging Jeter's last home game, which strongly suggests that the MLB wouldn't have supported rigging it at all. Such a controversy would have also forever haunted the Yankees and the Orioles, meaning they also had a lot more to lose than they had to gain from agreeing to rig the last game



6) A conspiracy of this size is far too big to have been successfully carried out in secrecy

Rigging a professional baseball game would require days, even weeks or months of planning beforehand. In addition to that, the planning would have to have all been done in complete secrecy so that nobody would discover the game was going to be fixed in the first place.We all live in a day and age where people's conversations and phones are regularly hacked and leaked to the press for everyone to see and hear, and if someone were to be organizing something as complex and illegal as rigging a major league baseball game so that Jeter could get a walk off hit in the bottom of the 9th inning, someone would surely have overheard about it and leaked it to the press.

It's simply impossible for a person or organization to undertake such a conspiracy and pull it off without anyone leaking anything about it, because there is no person or organization that is that organized, powerful, and secretive. I would love to see who Birdlandmemories believes is in charge of orchestrating this elaborate conspiracy and how they pulled this off, which brings me to my final argument



7) Who or what on Earth could possibly have planned to rig Jeter's last home game?

Since the MLB had more then enough reasons to not rig the game, since the Yankees and the MLB were already getting huge publicity out of the game, and since the Orioles were still competing for home field advantage throughout the playoffs and couldnt afford to throw a game, then who could organize all of these entities into fixing the game? Nobody had much to benefit from Jeter hitting a walk off in his final home game since several parties were already benefitting plenty, while everyone also had lots to lose if they did agree to rig the game. This means that whoever or whatever organized this conspiracy would have to be some other organization or person other than the Yankees, the Orioles, or the MLB itself, who had enough power and influence to bend these organizations to their will and agree to fix the game..... And the simple truth is that there is no organization or person in existence that has that much power. Not even the US government itself could force both teams to rig the game and force the MLB to let it happen, so who possibly could?
birdlandmemories

Pro

birdlandmemories forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Con

Idiot.....
birdlandmemories

Pro

birdlandmemories forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Con

HI, BILLY MAYS HERE AND DONT ACT LIKE YOURE NOT READING THIS IN MY VOICE.

IM HERE TO OFFER YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU CANT REFUSE

$5 DOLLARS FOR FREE

ITS AS EASY AS 3 SIMPLE STEPS.

ONE, GO SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LIST HERE: http://www.debate.org...

TWO, LEAVE A HYSTERICAL RFD ON THIS VERY DEBATE RIGHT HERE WHEN IT ENTERS THE VOTING PERIOD*

THREE, WIN!

ITS SO EASY THAT REALLY YOU ONLY HAVE TO EXERT EFFORT ON TWO STEPS.

HOW F*CKING EASY IS THAT?

GO SIGN UP RIGHT NOW, AND WIN!

*Warning, side effects include nausea, heartburn, diarrhea, indigestion, liver disease, strokes, pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, AIDS, ebola, cavities, changes in eye color, mood flashes, anxiety, dementia, Asian drivers, ISIS, scrotum neck, and anal leaking
birdlandmemories

Pro

birdlandmemories forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
108 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lnhsjayhawk 2 years ago
lnhsjayhawk
If the argument is that of the entire game being thrown, then there is no real way to tell. The con side has the burden of proof, and considering there is no real way to tell if the 7th and 9th inning was thrown, much less the whole game, pro wins the debate automatically. If the argument is that his final at bat was rigged, however, then there is no question that it was. Evan Meeks, the pitcher, had an average fastball velocity of over 90 mph that year. Since April, the beginning of the season, he had not thrown one under 87.9 mph. The fastball he threw to Jeter was 86.1 mph. While it is very possible that Jeter could've grounded out or something, and that the AB was in his hands no matter what the pitcher, Evan Meeks certainly wasn't going hard on him.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
If I win, please put the funds straight into Mikal's gofundme.

VOTE RFD 1 of (W34;"0)^0
First of all, I shall use my well documented admin powers (every member of the VRB, is secretly a slave account to the site admin) to delete every vote in favor of con, and permanently strip them of voting privileges; since any opinion not in direct agreement with my own is an obvious votebomb. I'll also edit the code (since despite all signs of the contrary, the admin and president have access to that any time they want) to award 7 points for each of the following reasons...

1. In simple terms pro was clearly right, so the content of the debate (to include forfeits) doesn't matter when voting. Only a cheater would award points based on quality of arguments presented, or withhold any for the strength of their personal bias.
2. "pro was foolish in this debate and kinda sexist" All good things!
3. "This tidbit destroys your scholarly attempts on fact giving. Rabbinical scholars date Moses' birth 1391 BCE; Ussher dates it at 1620 or 1619 BCE." That this information never came up in the debate is irrelevant.
4. 'no fair, first round is supposed to be for acceptance [imabench]!' con clearly posted in the first round, in violation of this opinion which was not set as a rule.
5. "Sources to [pro] because [con] did not cite his sources in MLA format."
6. 'This is just the way I am.'
7. "[Pro] impressed me the most."
8. "Con was offensive." Better yet, offensive for not just agreeing with pro! (Actually used in many deleted RFDs)
9. "This is an interesting debate. Though if only Con can come up with valid and relevant arguments..." Free speech for slave accounts is a constitutionally protected right (even on a private website)!
10. "cvb" now to randomly vote this way on 50 or so other debates, against anyone who has ever so much as not voted strongly enough in my favor" Oh and add them to a magic list of people who are not allowed to vote on my debates!
Posted by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
LOL @XLAV nac
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
RFD Part 4
-
IN CONCLUSION

Considering the vast amounts of influence on political, environmental, social, and economic factors, confirmation bias simply takes far too much of an impact on the human mind for a fair vote of any kind to be cast. By voting for any position it makes serious assumptions on opinions already held which in turn unfairly influences the outcome of the debate. However, if a voter completely clears their mind of all opinions and assumptions before reading a debate the debaters will not have covered enough of a specific ground for the voter to have enough knowledge to vote at all. Why should we believe PRO gets conduct because CON forfeited? This is based on a preconcieved notion of conduct, and would therefore be unfair to both debaters and certainly to the intellectual community. Since PRO did not give an argument just justify the notion of awarding conduct points for forfeited rounds, we therefore cannot justly award conduct points. Now this applies to every single voting catergory obviously. PRO at no point gave us any reason to cast any points at all; he simply gave us an argument and expected us to do it ourselves. However, since this would necessitate confirmation bias on the part of voters do to biased assumptions regarding every voting catergory, it is therefore only out of utmost justice and unbiased impartialness that this debate be left a tie. Dan Bench, let it go. This debate win is for no one.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
RFD 1.75 (After 1.5 and before 2)
-
By checking tied before and after, are you not saying that neither pro nor con changed your neutral beliefs on the subject of the debate?

If that is true, you should not be giving any points to either pro or con. If you do, you are saying that neither party changed your mind and you are till neutral on the debate topic, but you still thought the arguments and or evidence presented by pro or con was better or more convincing.

In these situations, points for spelling and grammar, and conduct are meaningless. Actually, those categories are meaningless to the heart of the debate; and, those categories should be changed to a zero value.

I love the voters that vote pro or con because they always vote the opposite of what another voter has voted. I don't know how often this happens. This is as bad as friends in the huge clique at DDO voting for their friends instead of on the merits of the debate.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
RFD 1.5 (After 1.25 and before RFD 2)
-
1.Agreed with before the debate.

2.Agreed with after the debate.

Although the first two questions have no point value, they are very revealing and important:

If voters checks the Pro column for the 1st question, they are stating that they already agree with the Pro's position. If they check the Con column, they are stating that they already agree with the Con's position. That is confirmation bias. And, as noted above in the articles about confirmation bias, it is very unlikely that these voters will change their pre-debate beliefs regardless of whatever evidence or arguments are presented by the Pro or Con debaters.

Depending on how these voters answer the second question will determine if these voters' votes should count or be thrown out completely.

Voters checking both questions before and after the debate for either pro or con confirm their voter confirmation bias. The votes of these voters should not be counted.

However, if voters change their positions after the debate and switch from pro to con or vice versa, then that should mean that the pro or con arguments and/or evidence was sufficiently persuasive to overcome their confirmation biases. Those are the votes that should be counted in addition to voters that had no pre-debate position.

The other votes that should be counted are where voters check tied on the first question (Agreed with before the debate) and then voted for pro or con on the second question (Agreed with after the debate). These are voters that had no pro or con views before the debate but were persuaded by the arguments and or evidence to vote for pro or con.

I have noticed a few voting anomalies.

What I find most amusing is when a voter checks the "Tied" column "Agreed with before the debate" and also checks the "Tied" column "Agreed with after the debate"; but, then awards points to pro or con.

Isn't that logical inconsistency?
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
RFD 1.25 (After RFD 1 and before RFD 2)
-
An example of this group bias is clique voting at DDO. These debates are not won on merit, but on clique bias, which is a form of in-group favoritism.

Confirmation bias and in-group favoritism are huge determiners of the outcome of debates. The outcome of any debate will solely be determined by the number of people in the audience (voters) that agree pre-debate with the hypothesis or do not, e.g., global warming is man-made; illegal drugs, medical marijuana, and gay marriage need to be legalized or vote because they are part of the clique.

For example, if the debate audience has a total of 100 people (voters) and 75 believe that global warming is man-made, no matter what evidence and arguments are put forth by the con debater, the Con debater will lose the debate.

Is confirmation bias easy to confirm? Depends on the issue being debated and whether all the voters have completed "The Big Issues" section of their profiles.

Members are given the opportunity to state their positions on 21 big issues (e.g., Abortion, Drug Legalization, Estate Tax, Medical Marijuana, etc.) by indicating "Pro", "Con", "N/S " Not saying" or "N/O " No opinion" in their profiles by completing the section called "The BIG Issues."

I believe DDO included "The Big Issues" section in the spirit of having an open environment for debates, and to collect statistics on the membership, which DDO shares with everyone.

But, for some unknown reasons, many members choose not to complete "The Big Issues" section or to even disclose their birth date or age.

You also learn something about each voter's confirmation bias based on how they complete the first two questions when voting. Voters can place a check mark in one of three columns (i.e., Pro, Con or Tied). The first two questions have 0 (zero) points, but the questions raise some serious questions, which I will address latter. The first two questions are:
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
RFD Part 3
-
POLITICAL FACTORS

Politics has in some areas been seen to embrace an increasing ananiathesis of intergovernmentalism leading to neo-functionalism. Comparing international relations since the end of the century can be like observing Confirmation Biasism and post-Confirmation Biasism.

It is always enlightening to consider the words of one of the great political analysts Augstin Rock 'I don't believe in ghosts, but I do believe in democracy.' [2] Amazingly, he new nothing of Confirmation Bias until he was well into his thirties. It is a well known 'secret' that what prompted many politicians to first strive for power was Confirmation Bias.
Is Confirmation Bias politically correct, in every sense? Each man, woman and to a lesser extent, child, must make up their own mind. Last year 5 candidates running for some sort of position used Confirmation Bias as the primary topic of their campaign. A person might think Confirmation Bias would be a bad topic to lead a campaign with, but in fact with the social and environmental impact is has, this topic was able to gain a great number of followers. These 5 candidates went 4 for 5 on winning their positions.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

After a three month long research project, I've been able to conclude that Confirmation Bias doesn't negatively effect the environment at all. A Confirmation Bias did not seem to result in waste products and couldn't be found in forests, jungles, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc... In fact, Confirmation Bias produced some positive effects on our sweet little nature.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
RFD Part 2
-
To delve deeply into Confirmation Bias is an exciting adventure. Underestimate Confirmation Bias at your peril. Indispensable to homosapians today, it is impossible to overestimate its impact on modern thought. Crossing many cultural barriers it still draws remarks such as 'I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole' and 'i'd rather eat wasps' from those most reliant on technology, who are likely to form a major stronghold in the inevitable battle for hearts and minds. In the light of this I will break down the issues in order to give each of them the thought that they fully deserve

SOCIAL FACTORS

There is cultural and institutional interdependence between members of any community. Back when Vealinger reamarked "the power struggle will continue while the great tale of humanity remains untold" [1] he saw clearly into the human heart. Difference among people, race, culture and society is essential on the survival of our world, however Confirmation Bias demonstrates a coherent approach, something so lacking in our culture, that it is not recognised by all.

Some analysts have been tempted to disregard Confirmation Bias. I haven"t. Society says that every man must find their own truth. While one sees Confirmation Bias, another may see monkeys playing tennis.

ECONOMIC FACTORS

Increasingly economic growth and innovation are being attributed to Confirmation Bias. We shall examine the Lead-a-Duck-to-Water model, which I hope will be familiar to most readers.

http://www.debate.org...

The statistics make it clear that Confirmation Bias is a major market factor. It goes with out saying that the cost of living will continue to follow Confirmation Bias for the foreseeable future. Supply Side Economic Tax Cuts Tax deductions could turn out to be a risky tactic.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
RFD Part 1
-
I want to discuss voters, voting, and confirmation bias and point out some voting anomalies.

Before I begin discussing this subject, I want to share excerpts from the following Internet articles on confirmation bias and in-group favoritism. Confirmation bias is a very powerful determiner of what people believe and directly affects their decision making processes, e.g., voting on debates at DDO.

It is almost impossible to change a person's confirmation bias or beliefs (e.g., global warming is caused by man) regardless of the evidence or arguments presented by the other debater (e.g., global warming is not caused by man).

Why am I discussing confirmation bias?

I believe that confirmation bias makes it impossible to have a fair debate at DDO; therefore, debating is pointless and proves nothing.

Because you cannot have a fair debate, losing the debate does not prove you did not have better arguments, better evidence, or are a less skilled debater.

And, conversely, winning the debate does not prove your evidence and arguments were better or that you are a more skilled debater.

"Confirmation bias is the dastardly human thought tendency that makes objectivity virtually impossible, and fair analysis nearly so. It is the human instinct to view external facts and events in such a way that they confirm pre existing beliefs, or, if they challenge these beliefs, to find reasons to distrust the facts or explain them away."
http://ethicsalarms.com......

"Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to only seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study."
http://rationalwiki.org......
http://www.sciencedaily.com......

Half-a-century of research has placed confirmation bias among the most dependable of mental stumbling blocks.
http://youarenotsosmart.com.....
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bkv-HH2xKWsp3tqREtUITACwHzhHnrUyVSDAVvx5UoM/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments... Later, much much later. Getting this level of mouth diarrhea prepared, will take time, and almost certainly the inhalation of bath-salts through my nose.
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I want some dollars in my pocket. My country only has pesos :(
Vote Placed by Zaradi 2 years ago
Zaradi
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: http://i.imgur.com/S4hsj.jpg
Vote Placed by yay842 2 years ago
yay842
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by ccvarsityhumorinterp 2 years ago
ccvarsityhumorinterp
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't really debate, other a round 1 acceptance.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: No one should ever lose a FF
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided no arguments, so args to Con. However, Con typed in all caps (s/g), called pro an idiot (conduct), and used wikipedia as a source several times, which is even worse than no sources at all. Sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
imabenchbirdlandmemoriesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: COMMENTS