The Instigator
blond_guy
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Fidel Castro is and will always be Cuba's national hero because he's got balls.

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
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,377 times Debate No: 2832
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (10)

 

blond_guy

Pro

Let me start off by saying, if you already disagree with me take a deep breath, look away for 5 seconds, then hear me out.

Fidel Castro is a national hero for many reasons. He is inspiring, these were the best 49 years Cuba has ever had for a long time.

Let me start with the some displays of research I've done on Cuban history. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War in which Cuba was totally kicking ace, the United States came in right before the end under the false pretext that an American ship was blown up by Spaniards. But there's a reason why they went in. America had their own interests in Cuba. What ended up hapening was that America claimed full credit for Cuba's victory on the Spaniards so then made Cuba "their biatch". They claimed Guantanamo Bay for themselves, put lots of American companies in Cuba making money for and only for America.

So then in 1953, while Fulgencio Batista ruled Cuba, Cubans where being opressed, killed by the thousands, there was racism in the country and the blacks were all lower class people. Fidel Castro along with some of his supporters attempted to take over the Moncada Barracks, in an attempt to overthrow Batista. However, Fidel failed and was put in jail. He was realeased in less than two years, due to the political pressure on Batista to release him, and he left to Mexico where he would plot a take 2 on the overthrowing of Batista.

At the time, Cubans were very unhappy with Batista, no one had the guts to overthrow him though. Anyone who opposed him or even bad mouthed him would be killed or thrown in jail. Batista was a butcher. Why didn't America intervene? Why didn't America support Fidel Castro? Because even though Batista was an S.O.B., he was OUR S.O.B. He kissed up to America like there was no tomorrow.

In 1957, Fidel was joined by Ernesto Che Guevara (yes, that's the general on those t-shirts) and a bunch of Cuban exiles and went back to Cuba. They stayed at the Maestra Hills where they were sent resources to stay alive from Cuban conspiracists supporting his cause (there were many at the time). Many New York Times writers extolled him in articles and one even went to interview him at the Maestra Hills.

America was geting worried about this Fidel Castro guy taking over the Cuba that made so much money for them so they asked Batista if he needed help. And Batista's major mistake: He said he had Fidel under control.

By 1958 Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were on a roll. They started in Western Cuba and rolled to Eastern Cuba with less than 1,000 men against Batista. The thing is that everytime Fidel arrived at a town, even soldiers would join him and betray Batista. By June 8th 1959, Fidel was in power.

By then, he simply gave the middle finger to America and for a reason. America had tried to stop him repeteadly and even when Fidel had already come to power, the C.I.A. attempted his assassination several times, all failed. In 1961 the C.I.A. organized the Bay of Pigs invasion with Cuban exiles in order to overthrow Fidel. Fidel was way too popular and way too fierce. America couldn't take him.

Fidel has a bad image in America because of propaganda, but he is really an inspiring hero who fought for his cause. And whether you agree with his cause or not, the Cuban citizens did and that's all that matters.

Fidel Castro had more balls than any American president, and if you disagree name me one American president from the 20th century that committed an act of bravery bigger than Fidel Castro's.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

You state that the reason fidel castro is and always will be Cuba's national hero is "because he's got balls."

Having balls however, is no indicator of whether someone should be a national hero. I happen to have a few myself. Am I therefore cuba's national hero? Or the united states' national hero?

Or does it only apply to a country's leaders?
Hitler had balls, both in the literal and metaphorical sense. Is he therefore always going to be germany's national hero? I think not, and most germans agree with me.

Fundamentally, heroism is not just about courage. For someone to be your hero you have to agree with either their cause or their motive, or at least something about them. Courage alone is not a point of agreement but an emotion.
Is hitler your hero?

"
Fidel Castro had more balls than any American president, and if you disagree name me one American president from the 20th century that committed an act of bravery bigger than Fidel Castro's.
"
Ignoratio elenchi. In the literal sense, all american presidents had the exact same number of balls as castro, and an act of bravery is no indicator thereof. Also, the limit to the twentieth century violates fair discussion of your idea that "Fidel Castro had more balls than any American president." After all many early brave US presidents rebelled against Britain, which had no geneva conventions and such at the time that limited the danger against Castro.

Also, you are ignoring possible future US presidents (John Mccain anyone? :D). Resisting torture requires a lot more of the metaphorical balls you seem to be speaking of than risking assassinations from an incompetent intelligence agency.

But alas I digress, the quality of american presidents is not the article of the debate. I need merely prevent you from proving at least one of the following two notions:
1. That Castro is and will always be Cuba's national hero:
2. That Castro's possession of balls is the cause of 1.

Regarding your suppositions about the positiveness of his administration, need I remind you of the creed "Liberty or death." Batista created a lot of deaths of innocents and so was a monster-- but it was possible to live. Indeed his existence in Castro's way is the only thing that kept any sense of purpose to many cuban's lives, the purpose of course to resist him. No sense of purpose is possible under communism for the living who have surrendered to it, as death is the purpose and the standard of the communist ideal ("From each according to ability, to each according to need" is set perfectly to extirminate ability and exacerbate need, ultimately eliminating production and therefore life). Because communism unlike Batista makes confusing pretensions at goodness to fool somebody, it demoralizes its victims far more. The victims cannot even know they are victims under castro until they escape.

What about all this suggests heroism? Middle fingers? I can make a middle finger at you if you like, but it won't help you much if you are enslaved in the process.
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Pro

"Hitler had balls, both in the literal and metaphorical sense. Is he therefore always going to be germany's national hero? I think not, and most germans agree with me."

Well he isn't a hero because of the Holocaust, not because of lack of "balls". I didn't say "Everyone that has balls is a hero", I said that being brave is what makes Fidel a Cuban national hero.

"Fundamentally, heroism is not just about courage. For someone to be your hero you have to agree with either their cause or their motive, or at least something about them."

If you actually read my whole argument you'd see that Cubans DID support Fidel Castro's cause. And people forget that, that's why I started this debate.

<>

Well if I didn't state that limit then you'd argue George Washington is braver than Fidel. 1st of all the time they live in makes that argument impossible. 2nd of all, all Americans would vote against me due to their patriotism and love for George Washington.

<>

Haha! You make me laugh. John McCain being tortured doesn't make him brave at all. Did he choose to be tortured? No. Were the Vietnamese agreeing to stop torturing him if he had given them information they wanted? No. He had no choice!

<>

I did not suppose that Castro's administration was positive, I'd be pretty insolent to suppose that. However, I did suppose that actions made by him in order to gain power in Cuba were positive, and many of his actions were BRAVE.

<
What about all this suggests heroism? Middle fingers? I can make a middle finger at you if you like, but it won't help you much if you are enslaved in the process.>>

1st of all, I am not defending Fidel's administration. Second of all get you facts straight, Fidel's a socialist, not a communist. Giving the middle finger to America is heroism. It's like giving the middle finger to a boss that overworks you. Except America was the kind of boss that would kill you.

Allow me to summarize your argument:
1) You like to play smarta*s and use the word "balls" as in testicles, which you and I both know is not how I meant it.
2) You state your opinion on Fidel's administration.----> What does that have to do with our debate?
3) You fail to tell me why Fidel wouldn't be a national hero to all those people that love him.

In your next argument please answer this question:
Why would Cubans not consider him a hero after all he did for Cuba, liberating Cuba from Batista, and indirectly liberating Cuba from America?
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
Well he (Hitler) isn't a hero because of the Holocaust, not because of lack of "balls". I didn't say "Everyone that has balls is a hero", I said that being brave is what makes Fidel a Cuban national hero."

This is in essence a contradiction. If the statement "everyone that has balls/is brave is a hero" is not true," then having balls/being brave is not a sufficient condition for being a national hero. It's pretty basic logic here. If it is a sufficient cause, no amount of holocausts will cancel it. Now if you want to argue "everyone who is brave AND does not perpetuate a holocaust is a hero," that's fine, but it is not your resolution.

"If you actually read my whole argument you'd see that Cubans DID support Fidel Castro's cause. And people forget that, that's why I started this debate.
"

Some cubans did. Not all cubans. Plus, a similar proportion of germans supported hitler as cubans supported castro. Since we have already established that Hitler is not a national hero, being supported initially by a given number of your populace is not enough to make you a hero.

"Well if I didn't state that limit then you'd argue George Washington is braver than Fidel. 1st of all the time they live in makes that argument impossible. 2nd of all, all Americans would vote against me due to their patriotism and love for George Washington."

That's entirely irrelevant. This does not give you an excuse to bar evidence. You cannot simultaneously argue that Castro was braver than ALL US presidents and bar evidence about most of those that weren't.

Also, in the twentieth century I rather think Eisenhower has a shot, even though I dislike a number of things about him. :D.

"
Haha! You make me laugh. John McCain being tortured doesn't make him brave at all. Did he choose to be tortured? No. Were the Vietnamese agreeing to stop torturing him if he had given them information they wanted? No. He had no choice!
"

Last I checked it was implied that the torture would stop if the vietnamese received what they wanted.

"
I did not suppose that Castro's administration was positive, I'd be pretty insolent to suppose that. However, I did suppose that actions made by him in order to gain power in Cuba were positive, and many of his actions were BRAVE.
"

See your first round:

"these were the best 49 years Cuba has ever had for a long time.
"
That seems to suppose positivity to me.

"
1st of all, I am not defending Fidel's administration. Second of all get you facts straight, Fidel's a socialist, not a communist. Giving the middle finger to America is heroism. It's like giving the middle finger to a boss that overworks you. Except America was the kind of boss that would kill you."

He leads the Communist Party of Cuba. If he were not a communist, he would not allow the party he leads to be called such. Also, can you clarify what distinction you see between socialism and communism? Because every socialist and/or communist I talk to has a different definition of the term. I've heard self-described communists declaring the soviet union or cuba or whatever was/is not socialist but communist, or not communist but socialist, and I've heard each of the same from self-described socialists, and NONE of them were willing to give a coherent definition. Marx has several definitions for each term, many of them contradictory. If you are going to join them in supposing the semantic distinction, please help clean up the mess a bit by clarifying this. Please?

If America were the "kind of boss that would kill you" as you claim, Castro would be dead. What they were were an enemy. A boss has a presupposed victory.

Plus, I do not consider giving the middle finger to a boss that holds you to your contract to be heroism, so your analogy demonstrates nothing. Even giving the middle finger to someone who deserves it isn't heroism, it's just a hand gesture.

Heroism requires positive achievement under difficult conditions. In order to be a national hero, your achievement has to be positive for the nation in question.

"
Why would Cubans not consider him a hero after all he did for Cuba, liberating Cuba from Batista, and indirectly liberating Cuba from America?"

False premise behind your question. He did not "liberate" cuba from anyone. He eliminated one master and then replaced them. Not for a moment could cuba be considered "liberated."

The wise in cuba will not put the label of hero to he who continued their enslavement far longer than the previous master could have, however much chutzpah it may have taken to do so.
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Pro

"False premise behind your question. He did not "liberate" cuba from anyone. He eliminated one master and then replaced them. Not for a moment could cuba be considered "liberated."

The wise in cuba will not put the label of hero to he who continued their enslavement far longer than the previous master could have, however much chutzpah it may have taken to do so."

This is where you are wrong. You were fooled by the American propaganda as were
many. Fidel Castro suffered and nearly died liberating Cuba from Batista. I
call it liberating because I have people in my family that have been taken away
from their home into jail or to death. Batista was a butcher, and no one cared in America because his evilness wasn't as publicized as much as the supposed evilness of Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro took everyone out of jail when he came to power, gave them homes, food, health care (which is more than I can say for this country), and nobody is homeless in Cuba. This is what they don't tell you on T.V., the pros of being in Cuba. That is why you'll find Fidel Castro supporters even in Miami. Only because Cuba never had chance to be as great as America, and only because Fidel Castro doesn't allow criticism of his administration doesn't mean he was a bad leader. Cuba was never better since before Columbus. Then it was run by Spain, then unofficially run by America because of the dictators who sucked up to us like vacuum cleaners. You say that the wise in Cuba wouldn't call him a hero? You are as ignorant as they come, in Cuba they all support Castro. Politicians, Doctors, Teachers, they all are smart enough to admit that if it wasn't for Castro, everything would've been worse. Continued their enslavement you say? Do you know the racism and torture that went on under Batista's administration? Of course not, because American politicians back then didn't want you to know. Blacks were treated like dirt, and Batista's KGB would harass everyone they could. Fidel, who is 100% white, ended the racism, dismissed Batista's police and army, and started treating everybody equally. Fidel came from a rich family, and still he wanted to make a difference in Cuba's discriminatory society. He might not be the best leader in the world, but he was certainly the best in Cuba. Now you give me a reason as to why I should think these murderous Cuban leaders are better than Fidel.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
This is where you are wrong. You were fooled by the American propaganda as were
many"

An assumption people often make about those who disagree with them.

"Fidel Castro suffered and nearly died liberating Cuba from Batista"

this is your evidence I was "fooled?" Hitler suffered and in fact died as a result of the holocaust. That doesn't make the holocaust a form of liberation.

" I
call it liberating because I have people in my family that have been taken away
from their home into jail or to death. "

Ignoratio elenchi, and anecdotal evidence. This does not make it "liberating" because many other people have people in their families who were taken away into jail or death BY CASTRO.

"Batista was a butcher, and no one cared in America because his evilness wasn't as publicized as much as the supposed evilness of Fidel Castro."

What's your point? I am not arguing batista was good. Batista was a butcher, so was castro, castro simply had a plan that would allow his rule to last longer (e.g. only slaughter those you consider "bourgeoise" or "traitors" and whatnot.

"Fidel Castro took everyone out of jail when he came to power"

http://query.nytimes.com...

He jails many dissidents, the above is merely one example. For one who claims to have done research your claim is inexcusable.

", gave them homes, food, health care "
After stealing from their owners and thus reducing the production of the above products. Providing your slaves room and board is not a "gift."

"(which is more than I can say for this country)"
In this country, you have to earn them (most of the time, although there are a number of people who get away with not doing so, mostly due to voters like you :D)

"and nobody is homeless in Cuba"

http://www.cubanet.org...

How exactly do homeless men die in cuba if there are no homeless in cuba? Are you just swallowing castro's propaganda whole?

"This is what they don't tell you on T.V."
Because, as shown above, it's not precisely true... although in fact they do tell me it on tv, I simply don't listen :D.

"hat is why you'll find Fidel Castro supporters even in Miami"
Not castro supporters from cuba. Maybe castro supporters who resent cuban immigrants, but a desire to have a dictator keep people stuck in a country because you resent them is hardly a recommendation.

"Only because Cuba never had chance to be as great as America"

Every country has a chance to be not "as great," but even better, than america. The trouble is, they don't take that chance, because it involves getting the government out of the way, and therefore is not good for bureaucrats.

"and only because Fidel Castro doesn't allow criticism of his administration doesn't mean he was a bad leader. "
Yes it does. Imprisoning and brainwashing an entire population, which is the essence of castro's policy, is bad leadership. It's also the essence of the policies of many american politicians, but fortunately occasional filibusters pop up :D.

"Cuba was never better since before Columbus." Cuba was a good place to be. That's not a recommendation for Castro.

"You say that the wise in Cuba wouldn't call him a hero? You are as ignorant as they come, in Cuba they all support Castro"

No, not all. Otherwise he'd have no one to imprison and kill and such. Most do, but I never said there were very many wise in cuba.
And so far you've done a poor job of demonstrating my "ignorance," and a fantastic job of demonstrating your own.

"Politicians, Doctors, Teachers, they all are smart enough to admit that if it wasn't for Castro, everything would've been worse."
Ad populum. The existence of many holding a position does not make it "smart" to espouse it.

"Continued their enslavement you say? Do you know the racism and torture that went on under Batista's administration? Of course not,"
False, I do in fact know that batista was guilty of that. Otherwise I wouldn't have said "continued." As you could have figured out yourself, had you been thinking. Again, the existence of a previous dictator is not a recommendation for the new one.

" Blacks were treated like dirt, and Batista's KGB would harass everyone they could. "

True. But what your missing is he wasn't as good at it as Castro. When two monsters fight, the one who wins is better at being a monster than the one who loses. The length of Castro's regime corroborates this. When you don't favor either side in a dispute as such but cannot escape, the proper course is to support the weaker so that the fight continues long enough that a third party, one that won't oppress you,has a chance to organize. Not to cheer on the strongest so that he can win and solidify his oppression sooner.

"idel, who is 100% white, ended the racism, dismissed Batista's police and army, and started treating everybody equally. "

Everybody equally? No, treating everybody based on how ardently they obeyed him. You cannot tell me the top bureaucrats did not have a higher standard of living than the peasants in Cuba.

Besides which, equally is a false standard. People are not equal. Stealing from those who produce in the name of equality discourages production, and thereby encourages death.

And of course he dismissed BATISTA'S police and army, they were the COMPETITION. Gangsters do not tolerate competition, especially the kind that rule countries. I don't see him dismissing his own police and army.

"Fidel came from a rich family, and still he wanted to make a difference in Cuba's discriminatory society. "

Most socialist leaders come from "rich" or upper middle class families. The lower classes usually learn the value of a dollar too well to throw it out of their mind easily enough to lead the forces trying to destroy value.

"He might not be the best leader in the world, but he was certainly the best in Cuba. Now you give me a reason as to why I should think these murderous Cuban leaders are better than Fidel."
I don't regard them as better in the moral sense. Morally they are all equally despicable, as they all sought to initiate force and fraud, they all acted in a manner consistent with a population not of humans but of cattle. The reason the former were preferable in a practical sense is that they were less skilled. They showed it was possible to overthrow them. Castro, it appears, had no such weakness. He was thus a far more dangerous oppressor. The oppressed should not regard their oppressor as a hero.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
Well, if Castro was a 'good guy', you wouldn't have an easy time finding one because everyone liked him.

But if Castro was an 'evil guy', you wouldn't find one soon either, because they have fled, are in jail/dead or afraid to end up there.

So it gets to a yes, no, yes, nono, yesyesyes game to continue down that road.
The debate would have benefitted from official data.
But these aren't easy to find (well, the ones that would prove your point, blond_guy, wouldn't be cause indeed the US wouldn't like those)

So maybe if this discussion happens again, specific examples instead.

It's no blame to you two eh! I'm aware that getting those things isn't that easy on this subject. I'm just noticing that problem.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Shorack, those are the ones who left in '59 right away. The rich. The ones that were afraid socialism would take all their money away. Cubans love Fidel, you go to Cuba and check it out. Of course there's always some people who oppose him, but in Cuba I don't think you can find one if you look for a MONTH! Or maybe that's because it's illegal to dislike him :P
Either way, Cuba will stay socialist and Fidel will be a hero in the days to come just like Lenin was a hero in the Stalin era.
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
blond_guy, wouldn't it be more accurate to add a word to the statement of the debate that makes it less absolute? Like 'many' or 'some'?

Because in the end, there are more than enough Cubans who think different. (like the mass that ran to the US in the passed years)
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Thank you for correcting me Ragnar Rahl, sorry I made that mistake.

Funkeemonk91. You are absolutely correct, and I sympathize with your father because I also think Che shouldn't receive all that admirations. Growing up, every time me and my mom came across those t-shirts she would scream at the person and give them a partial biography of Che, which was rather graphic. Sad thing is, these people would say "who's Che Guevara?". The only reason why this murderer is so idolized is because the media was too busy giving out propaganda on how Fidel Castro is such an a*shole instead of telling people out there the murderer Che really is!

sadolite, you said:
<<Saying Fidel Castro isn't so bad is the same thing as saying a malignant cancer tumor isn't so bad.>>

He meant not so bad as the propaganda out there makes him look. A malignant cancer tumor is actually exactly so bad (as people portray it to be).
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Off topic blond_guy, but I noticed in your profile you say

"he (Huckabee) isn't Senator of Arkansas anymore. Pitiful..."

The "anymore" qualifier makes this false. Huckabee was never senator but governor of Arkansas.
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
Che was a piece of crap that has somehow become idolized. there's a reason Castro sent him out of the country and it was for unnessecary killing. I'm not really sure how or why a romantic image was created of him, but oh well. And yes they did kill many many civilians in the rise, which is unfortunate and despicable but that doesn't negate his long held position as the physical embodiment of a people and the rest of the world's inability to topple him and his little island of baseball players and tobacco.

"Doing business with a tyrant only gives him more power"

Yes, and we've never ever done anything like that.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
If I were having this conversation in Cuba , I would probably be dead or in prison right now.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Saying Fidel Castro isn't so bad is the same thing as saying a malignant cancer tumor isn't so bad.
Posted by FunkeeMonk91 9 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
Both Castro and Che killed thousands of innocent civilians in the process of his coup. That in itself, makes Castro/Che despicable people that should never be looked up to. Why do people glorify these men so much these days? They were murderers! My father almost got killed from a grenade thrown by one of Che's minions. Was all of that death worth having present-day Cuba?
Posted by Shorack 9 years ago
Shorack
John_Quincy_Adams, i'll give you 2 who ruled the rest of their lives:
Tito
Franco
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
blond_guyRagnar_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:07 
Vote Placed by lorca 9 years ago
lorca
blond_guyRagnar_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:30 
Vote Placed by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
blond_guyRagnar_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 out_n_proud_HINDU 9 years ago
out_n_proud_HINDU
blond_guyRagnar_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:30 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
blond_guyRagnar_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 John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
blond_guyRagnar_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:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
blond_guyRagnar_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:30 
Vote Placed by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
blond_guyRagnar_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:30 
Vote Placed by zander 9 years ago
zander
blond_guyRagnar_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:30 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
blond_guyRagnar_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