The Instigator
PoeJoe
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points

Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 8/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,184 times Debate No: 5081
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (10)

 

PoeJoe

Con

----Premise----

This debate was inspired by the comments section of another debate.[1] Let it be clear that the positions of this debate are established and should not be argued (ie "I didn't say PRESIDENTIAL debates!"). The debate positions are clear:

My opponent, Ragnar_Rahl, believes that text electronic debates should take over the current system for presidential debates, while I believe that doing so would be disastrous.

----Arguments-----

Replacing the current system of presidential debates with electronic over-the-internet debates (similar to Debate.org) would be disastrous because:

1) There is no way of knowing whether or not the candidates are making their own arguments. How would we know that a candidate's chief of communications isn't writing for the candidate? How would we judge a president's intellect?

2) Electronic debates are easily susceptible to hacking. If, say, a hacker changed Senator McCain's position on the Iraq war, many voters would become incorrectly informed, and his chances for President may be unfairly hurt.

3) Almost 30% of Americans do not have access to the Internet![2][3] Now, it's much easier to get access to a TV than it is to a computer with Internet access. I believe that as many voters as feasibly possible should have be informed. Having Internet debates would deny 30% of America to be informed.

4) Even if everyone did have Internet access, fewer people would view the debates-- it is much easier to watch something for an hour than to read for multiple hours. This would lead to even more uninformed voters.

5) In following with argument four, political pundits would have an easier job spinning debates as the public would be less informed.

That's all for now. I leave the floor open to my opponent.

----References----

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] https://www.cia.gov...
[3] https://www.cia.gov...
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
1) There is no way of knowing whether or not the candidates are making their own arguments"

We presently know that the candidates typically do not make their own arguments, especially during debates. They are coached by staffers on everything from what to say to how to walk to when to look at their opponents, for hours and hours on end. The questions are prepared ahead of time, carefully screened for "neutrality," etc. The process is presently designed so that if anything comes up the candidate wasn't told what to say about specifically, they can easily change the subject without anyone noticing. At the worst then, if your point is true, it does not represent a flaw that is not also true of the present system.

"How would we know that a candidate's chief of communications isn't writing for the candidate?"

They already do that.

"How would we judge a president's intellect? "

Same way we do now? By paying attention to what they say and knowing that, even if they didn't write what they said, they had to hire the guy who did, and thus know what they were doing insofar as they did so? And if they are controlled to the point where they didn't even have to think much to do that... than aren't we really electing whoever controls them anyway, and it doesn't matter? Whoever the president trusts enough to control him is de facto president.

"
2) Electronic debates are easily susceptible to hacking. If, say, a hacker changed Senator McCain's position on the Iraq war, many voters would become incorrectly informed, and his chances for President may be unfairly hurt.
"
Each campaign currently operates at least one website. Have those been hacked? Video, too, is subject to alteration. In any case, in such an unlikely event, it would necessarily be quickly discovered, and for that matter a huge news event, which would correct itself. The people who actually pay attention to the debates aren't the ones who fail to hear the memo about obvious falsehoods.

3) Almost 30% of Americans do not have access to the Internet![2][3] Now, it's much easier to get access to a TV than it is to a computer with Internet access. I believe that as many voters as feasibly possible should have be informed. Having Internet debates would deny 30% of America to be informed.
At home perhaps. Yet public libraries typically happen to have computer access. With those factored in, that number shrinks dramatically, to mostly rural types (who frequently lack access to much in the way of TV stations either).
Also, I'm sure newspapers and such would want to include transcripts of the debates, or perhaps they'd be published independently, depending on length.

Also, some of the current debates are on CNN. How many americans lack cable? I'm sure the number has to compare with that lacking internet, and public libraries lack cable.

"
4) Even if everyone did have Internet access, fewer people would view the debates-- it is much easier to watch something for an hour than to read for multiple hours."

Not true at all! Because reading can be broken up into chunks, and done at ANY TIME. The debates are broadcast once or twice, cannot be broken into chunks, etc.

All of this, of course, largely ignores the nature of current television debates- They tell us very very little. The candidates spend as much time practicing body language as they do their actual arguments. EVEN IF fewer people get the message of electronic debates, those who do will get far more information, because the words can be picked over more easily, and weaselling out of things will be far too obvious. There will be time to mull over the actual LOGIC of the arguments, and fewer options to cloud them in emotionalism. This is not to say that it will be impossible, most voters will still get about as much as before as they did out of the debates- that is, nothing at all, since most frankly don't understand much about what's being said. But of those who do have a modicum of the ability to understand, far more will actually learn something of substance. There will be no excuse for, say, making up unsourced statistics in mid-debate... with time to actually formulate the arguments they will be able to give a source if one exists, and be exposed if none does.

Imagine a debate where the resolution has to do with the tactical prosecution of the war in Iraq, and I start, unprompted, to talk about how much respect I have for the troops without ever answering the question. It would look kind of silly on debate.org, everyone would notice, and rightly so. Yet that is the state of the average presidential debate.

For a more concrete example, take a gem from the Republican primary debates... Huckabee was being questioned about extending education benefits to illegal immigrants, I believe it was Romney who responded "This is why I say you're a liberal on that issue, that's not your money to be generous with" or some such (unfortunately it is hard to source video debates, at least hard for me, youtube searches tend not to work very well for finding a specific exchange of words, while electronic debates would not have that problem, imagine that!). Huckabee trailed off "I think we're a better country than to discriminate based on parentage.."

Perhaps, but the writing on the wall, Romney's implied attack on the welfare state was never followed through on. Not many noticed the evasion by Huckabee, nor the fact that this conflicted with Romney's actions as governor (signing into law universal health care and such).

Were the debates electronic, some commenter would bring this up, and such issues of logic, that are currently relegated to the fringe element would become central. It is, quite simply, harder to evade in text. You can't shout someone down endlessly for being cruel or unpatriotic or what not, there is no volume to quiet them :D. You can't interrupt them, their speaking does not conflict.
Debate Round No. 1
PoeJoe

Con

----Thanks----

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

----In Defense of My Arguments----

1) My first argument--that we would not know who was writing the text for the debate--still stands. My opponent attempts to refute this by saying that, "We presently know that the candidates typically do not make their own arguments, especially during debates," and goes on to say, "...even if they didn't write what they said, they had to hire the guy who did..." However, what my opponent has completely forgotten is the manner in which the arguments are presented. Take for instance the famous John F. Kennedy v. Richard Nixon debate in which Nixon became nervous, sweaty, and unsure of himself. Through this, we not only learned that Nixon was a bad public speaker, but was intellectually inferior as well. If that debate had been on the Internet, all that would have been needed for Nixon to "win", would have been for him to hire a better debater thus obscuring the truth about his inferiority. The manner in which debates are fought is extremely important in determining who we want as president. On the Internet, we would not know who is writing the arguments. Thus we should not have presidential debates on the Internet.

2) My second argument--that online debates are susceptible to hacking--still stands. My opponent writes, "It would... be quickly discovered, and for that matter a huge news event, which would correct itself. The people who actually pay attention to the debates aren't the ones who fail to hear the memo about obvious falsehoods." Prove it. Prove that zero voters would be misguided. I know I can prove that internet databases (including those for the CIA website) have been hacked. So prove it. Until then, that counterargument must be ignored.

3) My third argument--that the 30% of Americans that do not have Internet would not be able to access the debates--still stands. He starts off by saying that these 30% of Americans could just go to their public libraries. However, this is simply not practical. Imagine: 100 million Americans rushing to libraries and having to wait their turn. Obviously, this will not happen. But who can honestly state that having the debates online would not inconvenience (and for some completely disallow) many, leaving them uninformed.

4) My fourth argument--that reading for hours is harder than watching for an hour--still stands. My opponent writes that, "Reading can be broken up into chunks, and done at ANY TIME. The debates are broadcast once or twice (and) cannot be broken into chunks." Forgetting the ability to record TV onto tape (which I realize many Americans will not have the ability to do), my argument still holds. Can my opponent honestly assert that just as many Americans will want to read debates as much as they want to watch them? Reading is slightly more active, and will create a disincentive for many Americans to get informed. My opponent has missed my point entirely, and so it still stands.

5) My fifth argument--that political pundits will be able to twist debates easier--still stands because it was never addressed.

----Counterarguments----

My opponent's entire argument relies on one single point. That argument is epitomized in:

"Imagine a debate where the resolution has to do with the tactical prosecution of the war in Iraq, and I start, unprompted, to talk about how much respect I have for the troops without ever answering the question. It would look kind of silly on debate.org, everyone would notice, and rightly so. Yet that is the state of the average presidential debate."

To that, I ask my opponent to stop being condescending to Americans. Americans realize when they are being deceived. Americans know when candidates don't answer their questions. Americans ARE able to critically analyze a candidate's answers. And most of all, Americans are NOT stupid.

My opponent's entire argument lies in the lie that Americans will not be able to understand evasion when they hear it: "It is, quite simply, harder to evade in text." Once again, I'll ask my opponent (who bears the burden of proof) to prove it. Prove that Americans are incapable of critical analysis. Only then can you win this debate.

Thank you for your time. VOTE CON!
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"However, what my opponent has completely forgotten is the manner in which the arguments are presented. Take for instance the famous John F. Kennedy v. Richard Nixon debate in which Nixon became nervous, sweaty, and unsure of himself. Through this, we not only learned that Nixon was a bad public speaker, but was intellectually inferior as well."

WAIT WAIT WAIT.... That there is some BAD DEDUCTION! I've heard many insults tossed at Nixon... the bad public speaking, unscrupulousness, profanity, pragmatism... but intellectually inferior? First off being a poor public speaker (or more precisely public *actor*, the radio audience noticed nothing amiss with his speaking, indeed polls of radio listeners indicated a belief that Nixon won the debate, it was solely the television viewers who believed the opposite), does not mean one is intellectually inferior. It means one isn't good at choreographing one's movements, controlling one's appearance, and whatnot, essentially a physical rather than mental exercise. Secondly, even those who disagree with him politically (Greenspan for example) who came into contact with him note him for unusual intelligence. He DID after all figure out a way to open China to trade without the use of force... Like the consequences of that achievement or not, it's not an easy thing to do, not something a stupid man would pull off.

Whereas Kennedy was noted, of course, for such stupid ideas as sending a bunch of Cuban exiles, trained not by military professionals but by the Central Intelligence Agency, not known for training infantry, to invade a place in Cuba where they would be cut off from other rebel movements, unable to retreat, already known about before they were sent, essentially a waste of resources.

The mere fact that you could draw the conclusion that Nixon was less intelligent than Kennedy from the televised debates is proof of a weakness in them.

"Prove it. Prove that zero voters would be misguided."

I don't have to prove that zero voters would be misguided. Zero voters aren't misguided now. The point is that the present debates don't really tell us anything. The number of voters who could be informed is significant- the internet is after all widespread. 70% of Americans have it in their homes to be exact. Are anywhere near 70% of websites hacked in a way that causes them to give an altered message? I think not. Even the CIA websites, though they may have been hacked for access, are not frequently altered by those hacks. Hacking is a difficult proposition, stupid people aren't able to do it often. Yet any hacker can tell you that leaving signs of hacking (for example by altering a website regularly combed over by paid presidential staffers in a way that causes them to say a thing they wouldn't say) is about the stupidest move possible.

"
3) My third argument--that the 30% of Americans that do not have Internet would not be able to access the debates--still stands. He starts off by saying that these 30% of Americans could just go to their public libraries. However, this is simply not practical. Imagine: 100 million Americans rushing to libraries and having to wait their turn. Obviously, this will not happen. But who can honestly state that having the debates online would not inconvenience (and for some completely disallow) many, leaving them uninformed.
"

You forgot the possibility of publishing transcripts.

"Forgetting the ability to record TV onto tape (which I realize many Americans will not have the ability to do), my argument still holds."

"Honey, I'm recording the debates!"

Not gonna fly in the average household. You state reading is active... at least you don't have to remember to do it right away. Recording is a one-and done deal, and except for the small percentage of Tivo users requires a blank tape lying around.

And even then, video debates aren't exactly designed to be picked up.

And that still doesn't address the profound lack of content those video debates have.

"
5) My fifth argument--that political pundits will be able to twist debates easier--still stands because it was never addressed.
"
I did not consider it worthy of address, for reasons I had thought would be obvious. Television debates have so little substance there is very little point twisting them. Also, this contradicts your later idea that "Americans know when they are being deceived," make up your mind :D.

"
To that, I ask my opponent to stop being condescending to Americans. Americans realize when they are being deceived."
Empirical data indicates that this is obviously a lie Americans like to tell themselves (or more precisely average people everywhere). The following study of various cross-sections of America checked many group's capacity for lie detection. It contained several professional groups, a group of average people who signed up for a special-interest seminar on lying at the university that did the research, and a group of ordinary college students. Of these groups, only the Secret Service outperformed random chance when it came to lie detection.

And note these were just the best liars they could get for the study who were trying to fool them. Researchers. Politicians, however, they are in the business of it. Poor detectors, and excellent evaders of detection, all in the television format, which LIVES off deception (Is the average dysfunctional family fully made up and looking their best most of the time? No. Is the average sitcom dysfunctional family?) That doesn't speak too well for accuracy.

"And most of all, Americans are NOT stupid."

Just look at who we elect, and repeat that the majority of Americans are not stupid... Please.

The American electorate contains a large share of the people who sat there and nodded when people like Larry Craig, Mark Foley, or Ted Haggard talk about "Family values."

It has a large share of the people who nodded when they heard John Edwards say the same thing, though less aggressively... or when they heard him talk about his identification with the poor, not noticing the expensive haircuts.

Every time a major scandal comes out about an elected official, it somehow strikes a lot of people as shocking. This can have only one meaning, when one considers that those are the same people who voted for that official: They voted for him before, they won't vote for him now, so he must not have been what they thought when they voted for them, in short, they must have been DECEIVED.

And there have been a lot of scandals lately.

Give it a try. Phase in one electronic debate this year, and phase out one televised ones. I guarantee you'll like the results enough to follow it to it's conclusion :D.
Debate Round No. 2
PoeJoe

Con

--In Defense of My First Argument--

My first argument--that through textual internet debates, the audience would not know who is writing--still stands.

"I've heard many insults tossed at Nixon... but intellectually inferior?"

I'm not going to mention all the scandals Nixon was involved with (*cough* Watergate). Nor am I going to mention all of John F. Kennedy's great accomplishments as president of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Instead, I will concede my statement that Kennedy was smarter than Nixon. I do this, of course, because it is irrelevant to this debate. It's a wonder why my opponent fixated his attention (for my first point) to such a small area of my argument. Moving on though...

"It means (Nixon) isn't good at choreographing (his) movements, controlling (his) appearance, and whatnot..."

I'm glad we can agree. Here my opponent states that Nixon was a very bad public speaker.

"The mere fact that you could draw the conclusion that Nixon was less intelligent than Kennedy from the televised debates is proof of a weakness in them."

No, no, no, no. You are missing the fact that Nixon was a terrible speaker. Through Internet debates, we would not have learned that. And speaking skills is an essential quality that every president should have--just look at how harshly people make fun of President Bush! Because of Bush's lack of public speaking skills, he is often looked at as a brainless donkey to other nations.

A president should have the abilities to rally the people, make strong convincing arguments, and not cower in the face of other speakers. Both Bush and Reagan are bad public speakers. Shouldn't one's speaking skills be exposed and NOT hidden? Having Internet debates would hide such abilities. And thus my argument that we would not know who was performing the debates online still stands.

--In Defense of My Second Argument--

My second argument--that online debates are susceptible to hacking--still stands.

All my opponent does to counterargue this point, is to pick apart my statement "Prove it. Prove that zero voters would be misguided." He writes that, "I don't have to prove that zero voters would be misguided. Zero voters aren't misguided now," and other such gibberish. However, he again evades my point. Surely, if the debate website was hacked, a significant amount of voters would be misguided.

And no, television debates do not lead more people to be misguided. Again, Americans are not stupid. We can comprehend and critically analyze what we hear.

However, what if what we heard was not from whom we thought? It is certainly possible, if not likely! The CIA has had its contents hacked AND CHANGED numerous times. Imagine though, a website that would reach even more people. That would be like honey to a swarm of bees! And what if the hackers insert a virus like some hackers did recently to Wikipedia (http://en.wikinews.org...)? That would be disastrous!

My second argument--that online debates are susceptible to hacking--still stands.

--In Defense of My Third Argument--

My third argument--that the 30% of Americans that do not have Internet would not be able to access the debates--still stands.

"You forgot the possibility of publishing transcripts."

First, publishing 100 million transcripts (or 50 million if you take out the ones who don't vote) is simply impractical. Why fix something that isn't broken?-- TV is fine! Second, YOU forget about the deterrent of reading when compared. You completely do not address my statement that reads, "But who can honestly state that having the debates online would not inconvenience (and for some completely disallow) many, leaving them uninformed."

He never addresses this. I must assume he accepts this point.

--In Defense of My Fourth Argument--

My fourth argument--that reading for hours is harder than watching for an hour--still stands. ALL my opponent does to argue this point is by disputing, "Forgetting the ability to record TV onto tape (which I realize many Americans will not have the ability to do), my argument still holds." Okay, I concede that statement? I never meant that as an argument. Obviously; look at the wording.

Instead, my opponent completely misses the rest of my argument that reads: "Can my opponent honestly assert that just as many Americans will want to read debates as much as they want to watch them? Reading is slightly more active, and will create a disincentive for many Americans to get informed. My opponent has missed my point entirely, and so it still stands."

He never addresses this. I must assume he accepts this point.

--In Defense of My Fifth Argument--

My fifth argument--that political pundits will be able to twist debates easier--still stands because it is still unaddressed.

"This contradicts your later idea that 'Americans know when they are being deceived,' make up your mind :D."

Yes, Americans understand when they are being deceived when they get to hear the arguments first hand, NOT twisted by some pundit's diatribe. Like I said, reading is a disincentive to many Americans to be informed. These Americans will not be able to experience the debates firsthand, and will be unable to know the truth.

----Counterarguments and Conclusion----

"And note these were just the best liars they could get for the study who were trying to fool them. Researchers."

This complete "study" you speak of is completely unverifiable... mainly because we (the audience and I) have no idea what study you are talking about. I could be blind, but I see no sources. Everything falling under this evidence must be ignored.

My opponent continues to confirm his belief that Americans are stupid. If Americans are stupid, as you believe, then they would not be able to comprehend hours and hours of debate material. It takes a lot of intelligence to analyze pages worth of facts and material. Surely you may want to consider that statement.

My opponent goes on to point out many public scandals to prove that those who dislike the scandaler may have once liked the person, and thus had been deceived. However, how does that prove that electronic presidential debates are better?

In conclusion, my opponent has only provided one argument this whole entire debate. That argument is that there would be much more actual debate (and less emotion) on the Internet. In contrast, I have provided five arguments that I believe I have successfully defended.

I'd like to thank my opponent once more for accepting this debate, and good night. God knows we all need rest.

I leave my opponent the floor.

*snoozes*
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"
My first argument--that through textual internet debates, the audience would not know who is writing--still stands.
"

And my point that that applies equally to televised debates (you don't know who wrote the argument, just who is reciting them) still stands.

"Because of Bush's lack of public speaking skills, he is often looked at as a brainless donkey to other nations.
"
Grammar. Not speaking skills as such, just grammar, word choice and whatnot. He lacks word skills, the speech-specific ones are largely fine (sure as heck ain't nervous!) In other words, Bush's weaknesses would show up just as much in writing (And we'd notice that he probably can't spell too well :D.)

And I should note, even if DEBATES are moved to the electronic realm, people still give speeches at rallies or whatnot (The candidates do, if you watch the news, spend an abnormally long time in front of microphones, most of it having nothing to do with debates). You won't miss opportunities to hear the candidates speak, so, if speaking skills are important, it's still not relevant.

"Surely, if the debate website was hacked, a significant amount of voters would be misguided.
"

You haven't proved such significance.

"
And no, television debates do not lead more people to be misguided. Again, Americans are not stupid. We can comprehend and critically analyze what we hear."

Addressed that.

"The CIA has had its contents hacked AND CHANGED numerous times. "

Source? And for how long? When I access several public portions of the CIA websites, they seem rather intact.
Note that the CIA is much more useful to hack, too, than a website with debates on it. Various governments would put up hundreds of millions of dollars to get certain bits of intelligence.

"nd what if the hackers insert a virus like some hackers did recently to Wikipedia (http://en.wikinews.org......)? That would be disastrous!"
The hypothetical debate site, frankly is not a wiki. It's, in layout, theoretically similar to this, if narrower in scope and higher in security.

"
First, publishing 100 million transcripts (or 50 million if you take out the ones who don't vote) is simply impractical."

We already publish voters pamphlets in similar amounts, don't we? It's on a state by state basis, but still...

"Why fix something that isn't broken?-- TV is fine!"

Then why does such content as I described in my first argument pass for debate on television? It's certainly broken. The presidents we elect are evidence for this, unless you hold that the presidents we elect are optimal.

"
He never addresses this. I must assume he accepts this point."

I do accept the point that stupid people are deterred from reading. But stupid people aren't going to vote very well no matter what we do. Those who do not read are inherently misinformed, that is why the word "illiterate" carries such a negative connotation. Reading is what people who wish to become truly informed do. Watching television programs is by and large a copout, ineffective if one wishes to gain more than a superficial understanding.

"
Yes, Americans understand when they are being deceived when they get to hear the arguments first hand, NOT twisted by some pundit's diatribe"

A pundit's diatribe IS an argument. If a pundit can twist someone, a politician can do the same.

"
This complete "study" you speak of is completely unverifiable... mainly because we (the audience and I) have no idea what study you are talking about. I could be blind, but I see no sources. Everything falling under this evidence must be ignored.
"

Sorry, I thought I gave the source... here lemme comb through my history...

http://www.psych.umn.edu...

Have fun.

"
My opponent continues to confirm his belief that Americans are stupid. "

The majority, yes. Not Americans as such.

"If Americans are stupid, as you believe, then they would not be able to comprehend hours and hours of debate material."

Most Americans can't. What's your point? Those who can are better served with written arguments than verbal, as these sit still long enough to be comprehended.

"
My opponent goes on to point out many public scandals to prove that those who dislike the scandaler may have once liked the person, and thus had been deceived. However, how does that prove that electronic presidential debates are better?
"

I didn't claim it did. It proves the flaw in television. I gave the evidence that electronic debates are better in separate parts of my argument, specifically, it sits still long enough to be subjected to logical analysis, you can't shout anyone down in them, you can't interrupt them (nor have to worry about interrupting them), there are no time limits that discourage a lengthy treatment of ideas, etc.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Traitor!

moar(wtf?) charachers
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
I'll let you know that I was a newgrounder before I converted to 4chan.

It's comparable to converting from religion to atheism :D
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
You chaners would never understand the greatness of newgrounds.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
What? I don't go to newgrounds. If I went there to translate it, then the translator would of translated it back. It didn't.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Wat.

john you're breaking the rules of the internet by going to newgrounds.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
http://www.newgrounds.com...

John broke the translator! :o
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I can. Oh dear. I have ascended to uber1337....

Ah...!
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
It's the opening of the Gettysburg Address.

|= (F)
0 (O)
|_| (U)
|2 (R)

$ (S)
( (C)
0 (O)
|2 (R)
3 (E)

Four score and seven years ago, blah blah

Try looking at it now.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
And you wonder why Debate.org doesn't like you.

On a side note, I can't read that.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
I can make it more complicated PoeJoe

|=0|_||2 $(0|23 @|\|[) $3\/3|\| `/3@|2$ @60 0|_||2 |=@+|-|3|2$ |}|20|_|6|-|+ |=0|2+|-| 0|\| +|-|1$ (0|\|+1|\|3|\|+, @ |\|3\X/ |\|@+10|\|, (0|\|(31\/3[) 1|\| |1|}3|2+`/, @|\|[) [)3[)1(@+3[) +0 +|-|3 |*|20|*0$1+10|\| +|-|@+ @|| |\/|3|\| @|23 (|23@+3[) 3q|_|@|.

It's readable if you try.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
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 PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
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 apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
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 Puck 8 years ago
Puck
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
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 Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
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 Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
PoeJoeRagnar_RahlTied
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