The Instigator
Schnebby
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

ESPN's 15-Year TV Broadcasting Deal with the SEC

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2010 Category: Sports
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,060 times Debate No: 11593
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (7)

 

Schnebby

Con

Last year, ESPN and the SEC signed a 15-Year, $2.25 billion TV Broadcasting deal, which coincides with a 15-year $825 million deal ESPN currently has with CBS.
(http://sports.espn.go.com...)
(http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com...)

What does this mean? This means that SEC sporting events, especially football, will receive a ridiculous amount of exposure to about everyone in the country. While ESPN and the SEC are not taxpayer funded organizations, there is one aspect of this deal that makes this whole contract stink; BCS. The BCS is exactly why this deal should not be allowed to take place.

ESPN is the most watched sports broadcasting channel. If you want to know what happens in the sports world, or watch sporting events, you can likely find out what's happening by turning your TV channel to ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNNews, ESPN Classic, or ESPNU. ESPN also has ESPN 360, ESPN Radio, ESPN Deportes, etc. Sports is synonymous with ESPN.

Interestingly enough, ESPN also just agreed to a four-year deal with the BCS regarding, television, radio, and digital rights, which starts in 2011. So we have ESPN in a contract with the SEC and the BCS, and a sport (football) whose national championship matchup is decided primarily by opinions and judging in a system where exposure is key. Any football fan already knows how controversial the BCS is. It just got worse.

The human judged Harris Interactive College Football Poll, and the USA Today Coaches poll account for 2/3 of the BCS ranking. The BCS computer is responsible for the other 1/3 of the BCS ranking. For a single fan, who follows his/her team closely and watches every game, we know about our team. For a college football coach (a voter in the poll) who is trying to prepare his team for a football game, and athletic director (a voter in the poll) who simply is a human and doesn't like a rival school (and whose vote may reflect those feelings) or a journalist (a voter in the poll) who has another job to do, they do not have time to watch or go to 50 football games from around the country every week. So what do they do? They catch the highlights on TV, and listen to what the "experts" have to say, likely on ESPN. See the conflict? ESPN is in a contract with the SEC. ESPN will obviously show a plethora of SEC games and highlights, because it is in a contract with the conference. The SEC will be getting a ridiculous amount of exposure. It's no doubt that this exposure will reflect a positive image upon the SEC in the eyes of the voters. ESPN media heads would also not dare to shine too much of a negative light on SEC teams, as they're in a contract with the conference. The SEC will look better than it is, therefore, tarnishing the judging system, and human component, of the BCS.
(http://collegefootball.rivals.com...)

In conclusion. When you are the largest sports media outlet in the world and you sign a contract to promote one conference, and also have ties, and a major influence, to determine who plays in the BCS National Championship Game, something has to give. It's practically bribery.

Vote no. This deal should not be allowed to take place.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con, for starting this debate.

1. The SEC has dominated recent BCS games winning the last 4 championships, and 6 of the last 12. As such, it makes sense that their fan base has expanded throughout various parts of the country. My opponent noted that ESPN is 'the' place for sports, and many fans buy expensive sports packages offered through ESPN and their cable companies to watch their favorite teams play. Obviously, the most popular and 'favorite' teams are often the teams that win. Those are the games that fans want to see, even if they are not fans of the teams themselves. After all, the SEC has proven to be one of the most elite NCAA football conferences, so obviously people want to watch the games that they play.

Con's proposal of banning this contract would mean that SEC games therefore become less available to fans all over the country who want to watch them. And why should this be the case? Sports consultant Neal Pilson notes, "ESPN has made the business judgment that SEC football is a very exciting product that will find a market in non-traditional SEC cities" [1]. Another notes, "This deal gives us an opportunity to associate ourselves with the preeminent athletic conference in the country. With all due respect to other conferences, there's a passion and a fervor here that is unique." In short, this move makes sense.

2. Con's proposal is essentially a government takeover that has little to no relevance with the lives of people in our every day society. I'm assuming he'd want the government involved; who else would be relevant in prohibiting a business contract? Regardless, trying to enforce this type of prohibition would mean that ESPN would have to limit the same opportunities for any other schools or conference. This does not make sense for them from a business point of view, and ESPN is indeed a business. Imposing unnecessary restrictions will change ESPN entirely and even bring up other inequality issues. For instance, why not televise more DII games? Why limit most exposure to DI teams? The answer is obvious: because that's what fans want to see and are willing to pay for. Business 101.

3. Con mentioned how the teams who advance to the BCS are chosen, which include votes from fans and coaches. His argument is that extra exposure for SEC teams will give them an advantage for votes in both of these areas. However, coaches are absolutely aware about what other teams are doing; after all they prepare to play against those teams or at least hear about them and know what's going on. Coaches don't ONLY rely on ESPN analysts, and Con shouldn't assume that fans are ignorant enough to ignore other teams. By the way - ESPN will obviously still report on other teams, especially if they're successful.

4. While Con notes that ESPN sports analysts are "experts" in quotes - implying that he does not agree with their credentials - what he conveniently ignores is that these "experts" would be out of a job if their opinions weren't relevant, insightful and justified. For instance, if a so-called expert goes on about how good UF is, it's probably because the team went 8-0 in their conference. Obviously no "expert" is going to ignore that reality, just as one couldn't say that an SEC team like Vanderbilt was doing well after going 0-8 in the conference.

So, keep in mind that CNN analysts merely relay the facts and the numbers speak for themselves. Win-loss ratio and other figures help them come up with their analysis. In other words, Con's argument that these analysts are biased is hardly accurate. If a team is good, these analysts are going to say it because it's in their best interest to do so. If they reported misinformation or didn't mention teams that were outstanding, it would hurt them and their reputation. Therefore, Con's statement, "The SEC will look better than it is, tarnishing the judging system and human component of the BCS" is not entirely true. ESPN analysts can't just make stuff up or throw out random numbers. The teams from all conferences will speak for themselves.

5. Con writes that the ESPN analysts "would also not dare to shine too much of a negative light on SEC teams, as they're in a contract with the conference." I would argue that ESPN has little incentive to speak unnecessarily favorably of the SEC conference; the contract merely allows ESPN to have a bunch of access to the games, and televise those games nationwide. Whether the SEC goes to the BCS or not is of little to no relevance, because ESPN is going to cover the teams that go to the BCS regardless of their conference. Not to mention that ESPN has contracts with other conferences too!

6. While Con's point has merit in noting that some SEC schools such as Florida will actually be expanding their budget from this exposure while other schools must tighten their budget, he ignores the fact that the less visible teams in the SEC - such as Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Mississippi and Auburn - will now be getting more exposure so that they can expand their recruiting. In short, Con wants to prohibit the advancement of some schools because he thinks other schools that will also benefit shouldn't get the luxury, and through no fault of their own to boot. When you think about it, Pro wants to punish these teams (the players, coaches, schools and fans) and for what? Because they were too marketable? That's bogus. If these teams have the opportunity to succeed and expand, then to try and hinder that opportunity is poor sportsmanship in my book.

7. That brings me to my next point. Football: it's just a game. These salary increases and this additional exposure is really about the BCS games according to Con's first round argument. In other words, he suggests infringing upon perfectly legal business opportunities between ESPN and these schools because he's upset that perhaps there might be a slight advantage to one particular conference in terms of who does and does not make it to the BCS. I don't think the outcome of a college football game is reason enough to interfere with people's right to profit or prosper in a legal and reasonable manner.

8. Another issue I have is that I don't think money is or should be as much of a factor in college as it is in professional sports, and even there that argument annoys me. For example, I'm a life-long Yankee fan and how many times have I heard that the Yankees "bought" their championships with their high payrolls. However, the reality is that each player (and each coach) on each team has the ability to work hard, improve and win. Obviously richer schools have better recruitment opportunities, but so what? All players are on the same level, and what they do once they get there regardless of their college perks (or salary for professional players) is up to them. If players in Vanderbilt aren't as good as the players in UF, then they should practice and get themselves to that level instead of complaining about it. Money doesn't win games. Players win games. And I can guarantee that if a team was successful with great numbers, they would get ESPN exposure regardless of their conference.

9. I also think Con does not give fans enough credit. Don't you think fans would get tired of seeing the same teams advance to the BCS games every year? I think it's safe to say that people appreciate variety and often even vote for the under-dogs anyway.

10. You'll notice that Con conveniently ignores other factors, such as the Big Ten having its own 24 hour sports channel available on most major cable carriers which grosses about $66M for the league per year, as well as the league's 10 year, $1 billion contract with ABC/ESPN. So... other conferences can do stuff like this, but not the SEC? And what about when Notre Dame for the longest time dominated the air waves by having every one of its games nationally televised?! Hmm... What gives?

[1] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Schnebby

Con

First of all, thanks for taking the debate.

Maybe I should've been more clear about my motive for disagreeing with the contract. Some of your argument is related to a business being able to do what it wants. I agree with you. My issue with this Goliath of a contract is the conflict of interest regarding ESPN, the SEC, and the BCS.

You made mention of the BigTen Network. The BigTen Network is not signing a contract with the BCS. Furthermore, the BigTen Network does not have exclusive rights to broadcast BigTen sports. The ESPN/SEC deal gives ESPN exclusive rights to SEC sports. If you want to see SEC sports, you are forced to watch ESPN, who keep in mind, will be in a contract with the BCS shortly.

The very premise that you base some of your argument on, the fact that winning drives TV ratings and higher viewership, is in agreement with my argument. If ESPN owns exclusive rights to SEC broadcasting, ESPN will want it's viewers to watch games on ESPN. The BigTen started its own network, which no doubt, took away a chunk of viewers that would've normally watched games on ESPN. The SEC probably would've started their own network, but ESPN could not let that happen. If the BigTen Network and a virtual "SEC Network" were to both be in broadcast, ESPN would've likely suffered some loss of viewership, as those are two premier football conferences. So ESPN gobbled up the rights to the SEC. If the SEC does well, ESPN will likely profit, as more viewers will watch better teams/games. Generally speaking, who would you rather watch, a game between two teams outside the top 25, or a game between two teams in the top 25? A game that has been hyped up by the media, or a game that has hardly been mentioned? Any positive spin an analyst can put on an SEC team, player, or game, will be benefiting their employer, ESPN. Additionally, do you think Mike Slive (SEC Commissioner) would appreciate ESPN analysts talking negatively about his teams? The SEC is a good football conference. If they don't like what kind of attention ESPN is giving them, maybe they'll pack their bags and start their own network. Do you think ESPN would like that idea? No, they wouldn't, which is why they're going to keep the SEC happy.

If ESPN didn't have such a huge influence on the BCS, or signed a contract with the BCS (which would lead anyone to believe that they'd surely want a representative from the SEC in BCS games), this ESPN/SEC contract would be more of an annoyance to some, than an actual problem to the already complicated BCS system. We could all say, "Good for the SEC, they made a great business decision." Unfortunately, we have to look at it and say "The ESPN has an influence on the BCS, why did they just sign a contract, gaining exclusive rights to SEC broadcasting...that is a conflict of interest."

And just for the record, and unrelated to any bearing on the debate, we all know that many sports "experts" probably shouldn't even be employed. And as far as voters in polls are concerned, the coaches rarely even vote in their own polls, it's primarily assistants that do that type of thing. And you'd be hard pressed to find the coach of a top team, knowing a whole lot about any team outside their conference, that isn't on their schedule. They simply do not have time to stay "up-to-date" with the teams from a dozen other conferences.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con!

My opponent opens his R2 argument by stating, "Maybe I should've been more clear about my motive for disagreeing with the contract. Some of your argument is related to a business being able to do what it wants. I agree with you. My issue with this Goliath of a contract is the conflict of interest regarding ESPN, the SEC, and the BCS." To me, this seems contradictory and non-sensical. On one hand Con is saying that he understands a business should be able to do what's in its best interest, but then in the next sentence he says that they shouldn't. Well which is it? It seems that Con recognizes the fact that this deal SHOULD be allowed, but because he thinks it gives an advantage to one particular conference, that he doesn't want it to. However, unfortunately this debate isn't about what Con wants but rather if this deal should be allowed to take place. So when he responds by saying that he agrees it SHOULD be allowed from a business aspect, this presents quite a predicament for his case.

If Con's argument is meant to point out a conflict of interest, number one I've already responded to all of the conflict of interest arguments in the last round, and number two I'm unsure if he means to say that the conflict of interest implies that this deal should not go through. However, my entire argument is about how and why the deal should be allowed regardless of any alleged conflict, and Con's understanding about their business right to do so (even if there IS a little bit of a conflict) is what's confusing. Also, I've made many arguments regarding why the conflict of interest isn't as real as Con would like you to believe.

Back to my arguments: The first point I brought up was about how prohibiting this deal would be unfair to the viewers and fans around the country who would appreciate (and are willing to pay for) this extra SEC coverage. Instead of responding to Point 1 directly, Con mentions this reality in his round by saying that he agrees (well, more like acknowledges the reality) that the SEC's success has made them a conference that people want to watch, and uses that to drive his argument that ESPN will therefore have essentially a monopoly on SEC games. But I say... so what? First, this doesn't respond to my point whatsoever about how the fans WANT to watch a lot of SEC games, so prohibiting this deal would essentially be punishing them.

Second, other channels have the rights to other conferences and yet Con does not seem to see that as an issue. Why? Because those other networks don't have a contract with the BCS. ESPN does. However, it makes perfect sense that ESPN would want a contract with the BCS, because Con and I both acknowledge that they are 'the' place for sports; a contract with the BCS would make sense regardless of what teams went to the BCS. Furthermore, said contract between ESPN and the BCS has little to no merit based on my other points and observations in the last round that Con ignored. More about that later.

Point 2 noted how government involvement in prohibiting this deal was unnecessary, and that trying to do so would bring up other "equality" issues such as ESPN and other networks showing D1 games but not DII games. Con never responded to this issue. The point here is that the goal isn't to cover all conferences equally, but rather show the games that the viewers want to see. That's beneficial for both the business (ESPN) and the fans. In response to my third point about coaches having a general idea of what teams are good and which aren't, Con responded by saying that this is not entirely true and many times the coaches themselves aren't the one casting the votes. This indicates that Con has issues with the entire voting system in general, because this would be true regardless of whether the contract existed or not.

Point 4 was where I mentioned how ESPN experts can't just make stuff up about which teams are great or not great, because the numbers will speak for themselves. I also pointed out how it would be in their best interest to be honest not only to preserve their credibility, but because covering more teams means more fans are satisfied and that more fans will tune in. Besides, if another conference started to emerge as elite, then there's no reason why ESPN couldn't just as easily enter into a contract with them as well sometime in the near future. Point 5 is where I mentioned that ESPN wouldn't have a problem talking negatively about the SEC; a point which Con ignored and continued to talk about further in R2. I'd recommend he therefore read my fifth point again to see my rebuttal on the issue.

I was particularly displeased that Con didn't respond to my 6th point regarding this being a great opportunity for schools in the SEC who will benefit from this deal, making them greater contenders in their own conference to challenge teams like UF and LSU who typically dominate. My 7th point was how about the BCS, after all, was just a game, and my 8th point discussed how in the end, it's the players and their performance which would largely determine their reputation - not just their money and game coverage. As I've said, if the teams do well, they WILL be talked about. I watch ESPN all the time and they always mention teams I've never seen but that are doing well (for instance in the PAC - a conference I'm not too familiar with). That brings me to my next point: the fans. Just because I don't really know the PAC, for instance, doesn't mean they don't have their own fan base or fans who won't vote.

So with all due respect, Con not only ignored a great deal of my arguments, but his points have had little to no relevance at all. For instance, he spends the majority of R2 talking about how ESPN would profit if the SEC did well, because people would want to tune into their games. Well obviously! That's the whole point of the deal in the first place! It also has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged conflict of interest regarding the BCS. He also contradicts himself a lot in an attempt to make a faux point. For instance, he asks if you'd rather watch a game that has been hyped up by the media (an SEC game) or a game that has hardly been mentioned. However, he has already acknowledged that people want to watch winning teams (and the SEC is good, which is why they made this deal in the first place) meaning people would have wanted to watch SEC games anyway without the media hype.

Con also mentions that ESPN analysts will have an incentive to talk about the SEC positively, and that speaking negatively might end their contract. This, again, is a huge stretch. I've already pointed out in the last round how the numbers will speak for themselves; an analyst isn't going to sit there and talk positively about a team that's doing poorly (See: Point 4). Talking negatively about the SEC also in no way implies that the SEC would withdraw their contract either. They don't expect analysts to lie, and quite frankly I'm really not sure where my opponent is getting this idea - especially when I explained in the last round how and why that would not be the case. Moreover, Con's point about the SEC possibly starting their own network isn't exactly reliable, because it's in their best interest to stick with ESPN; that's why they chose that route in the first place. Plus, Con makes it seem as if the SEC has made ESPN their daddy. That's not true. They're going to do their job regardless of their contract. Con hasn't proven otherwise, and like I said I've explained why (mostly in R1).

Con also writes that ESPN would want one from the SEC to advance to the BCS because of their contract with them. This first of all ignores my point that ESPN has contracts with other conferences as well (!!!), and the fact that ESPN has rights to the BCS meaning they're going to show the game regardless of who makes it there. Hopefully my opponent can clarify some things in the next round. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theitalianstallion 4 years ago
theitalianstallion
It's not so much the winning that gets me--I'm fine with a conference being dominate--its the love affair the media has with the SEC that annoys the crap out of me. Get off your knees ESPN...The only teams that have deserved accolades are Florida, LSU, and Alabama; the rest of the conference is mediocre at best.

Also, I'm not the biggest fan of a couple of the coachs-Meyer and Saban; hypocrits and scumbags in general.
Posted by Nails 4 years ago
Nails
theLwerd, I noticed that you posted a comment on my debate (http://www.debate.org...) saying, "Hmm I wonder how you like it..." and then gave my opponent all 7 points after he'd forfeited the debate. I assumed that at some point in the past, I must have done the same, but I just looked through all of your debates which were lost/tied and I had voted FOR you in most of the ones in which I did vote, and on the ones where I didn't, I still agreed with my decision. So, what was the purpose of the comment?

P.S. I posted this to your most recent debate since your profile/messages are closed right now.
Posted by Schnebby 4 years ago
Schnebby
ESPN will have a contracts with conferences, just as CBS and NBC will have contracts with certain conferences, that's how the game is played. The issue I have is that ESPN is signing a contract to have exclusive rights to SEC broadcasting, which no other conference has. This makes the SEC synonymous with ESPN. And considering ESPN is signing a contract with the BCS, that makes the whole thing stink. If this contract has not been exclusive, and the SEC was just another conference to sign a non-exclusive broadcasting agreement with ESPN, I don't believe there would be a conflict of interest issue, as the SEC wouldn't be fully vested in ESPN.
Posted by ThePipes 4 years ago
ThePipes
I am not a huge sports fan, but it is obvious a lot of money is switching hands in college football. I could see where it could create a conflict of interest and possibly unintended corruption. I suggest that ESPN not have a contract with any conference. It will eliminate any tension.
Posted by Schnebby 4 years ago
Schnebby
Eh, she missed my entire point...but that's ok.

"If Con's argument is meant to point out a conflict of interest, number one I've already responded to all of the conflict of interest arguments in the last round, and number two I'm unsure if he means to say that the conflict of interest implies that this deal should not go through. However, my entire argument is about how and why the deal should be allowed regardless of any alleged conflict, and Con's understanding about their business right to do so (even if there IS a little bit of a conflict) is what's confusing. Also, I've made many arguments regarding why the conflict of interest isn't as real as Con would like you to believe."

I DID mean to say that the conflict of interest implies that this deal should not go through...I stated that in the first paragraph of my second round...not quite sure how that was missed. That was my ENTIRE point. Sure, a business should be able to do as it pleases, UNLESS there is a case where there is a conflict of interest, and the entire system could be ruined because a media outlet that has a contract with the system that determines that national champion AND EXCLUSIVE broadcasting rights to ONE conference. ESPN has a vested stake in seeing that the SEC does well.

"However, my entire argument is about how and why the deal should be allowed regardless of any alleged conflict, and Con's understanding about their business right to do so (even if there IS a little bit of a conflict) is what's confusing."

I started the debate based on the fact there there WAS conflict (which there is). Again...not sure how that point was missed.

But good debate, I guess I'm the only one that sees a problem here. Maybe i'll get "in" with debate.org's founder, and have him get his buddies to get on here and vote for me...that wouldn't be cheating, would it?
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
Haha ty sherlock. For basketball I'm a huge Big East fan, but for football there isn't really a conference that I'm all-about, though Rutgers is my school so I should probably support the Big East there too - heh. However, Rutgers football has sucked for quite sometime with the exception of that one season back in 06. The SEC is undoubtedly a great conference but I'm not a huge fan of Florida/Tebow so that put a little bit of a damper on it for me :P Last year I enjoyed watching Texas's games, but it might have been a coincidence that they were always on. Either way, fun debate!
Posted by sherlockmethod 4 years ago
sherlockmethod
I need to RFD, but I am tired. The SEC is football for me. I have a package to watch SEC games all the time (offered by our satellite company). If I want to watch non football, err..., I mean Pac 10 football, I can always go flip over to the lifetime network. j/k The Pac 10 produces some solid teams and the big 10 does as well. I am just being a fan. We grew up with SEC football and I sincerely believe we are doing it the best way possible. Hell, I'm a Tennessee Volunteer (Good ole Rocky Top) and we just got our butts kicked by the "lane train" fiasco. I may be too bias to vote, but Lwerd did the SEC proud, not bad for a Yankee :).
Posted by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
SQUIRREL!

kfc
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
Whoops! I ended this debate by saying "Hopefully Con can clarify some things in the next round" because I didn't realize that this was just a 2 round debate! Haha! Good thing I responded to everything then :D
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
Without sounding too narcissistic, I think I made some great points. But what do I know. Also, lol @ sherlock's comment to Stallion. I'm also curious as to why he hates the entire conference...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by twin 4 years ago
twin
SchnebbyDanielleTied
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 Schnebby 4 years ago
Schnebby
SchnebbyDanielleTied
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 Pathos 4 years ago
Pathos
SchnebbyDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
SchnebbyDanielleTied
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 Paris 4 years ago
Paris
SchnebbyDanielleTied
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 ThePipes 4 years ago
ThePipes
SchnebbyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
SchnebbyDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03