The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points

From a debate judging standpoint LM should win the "Pizza Rocks My World" debate with cliffsofdover

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: 5/15/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,804 times Debate No: 4055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (15)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

LM is none other than me, Logical-master. And the "Pizza rocks my World debate is this debate: http://www.debate.org...

I challenge someone here to show me why my opponent should win this debate. Offer me reasons and I will rebut them either by showing that cliffsofdover didn't say the points you put forward or by showing why your analysis is contrary to ethical debate principles. (Or any other option I can think of.)

I stand in firm affirmation that I should win that debate.
beem0r

Con

I must negate, LM should not win the Pizza Rocks My World debate with cliffsofdover.

I was considering putting forward the case that LM was not a debater in that debate, however, I will on this rare occasion decide that "I knew what you meant."

Now, it seems my opponent lack a fundamental understanding of how debate works. "I am advocating possibility, my opponent is advocating certainty" is simply not valid.

Take this debate, for example. I could not argue that it's simply possible that LM should have won that debate. I have to show that he should not have won.

Or "There's nothing wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes."
CON has to show that there is indeed something wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes. Or he could show that there's nothing wrong with being a bit sexist ALL THE TIME, but still, CON's position must directly conflict with the resolution.

Let's look at "Pizza rocks my world".

cliffsofdover: "Pizza rocks my world"
Logical-Master: "Pizza might rock his world."

THERE IS NO DIRECT CONFLICT THERE.

IF the resolution stated certainty explicitly, then Logical-Master's case would have been valid.

Logical-Master's case is the equivalent of saying "Yeah, that might be true" in an argument. IT IS NOT A CONFLICTING STATEMENT.

PRO showed a few reasons why pizza rocks his world. CON did not show that these stated reasons were probably not causing pizza to rock his opponent's world. CON instead said "I dunno, it seems possible that the resolution is true."

As CON, one must show that the resolution is NOT true. However, Logical-Master failed to do this. He did not show that the resolution was false in any way, and instead admitted that it might indeed be true. Thus, from a debate Judging standpoint, Logical-Master should not win the "Pizza Rocks My World" debate with cliffsofdover.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

Thank heavens my opponent did not advocate that LM was not a debater in that debate!!!

First, let us negate his attack on my most cherished "possibility/certainty" tactic. I'll address each of his comparisons accordingly and then attack his general reasons.

Re: "I could not argue that it's simply possible that LM should have won that debate."

Actually, this would be a valid argument as the premise would be there is no decisive way to determine who won and who lost. It is unfortunate that my opponent didn't take this route as I admittely believe it would have been a harder position to tackle.

Re: CON has to show that there is indeed something wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes.

Not at all. CON could advocate that there is no way to conclude that there is indeed something wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes, however, unlike the previous usage of "possibility/certainty", this would be much harder for CON to pull off in this instance as it is rather simple to show a wrong of "a bit of sexism" with decisive means.

Re: "CON's position must directly conflict with the resolution."

My esteemed opponent seems to believe that possibility does not directly conclict with certainty. Interestingly enough, there is emphasis of the word "directly", as without it, he'd essentially be suggesting that "will" and "may" mean the same thing. As in, I WILL go to the store means I MAY go to the store. If he is suggesting this, all it will take is a simple definition to refute his case. If this is not the case and he means to suggest that he believes there is indeed conflict, but he just doesn't believe that it's direct, the two contentions below should suffice.

First, lets go ahead and expose a crucial flaw in CON"s case. He suggest that in order for this to be considered a debate, there must be DIRECT conflict. I agree that there must be conflict present, but by what authority is he able to suggest that there must be DIRECT conflict? If you'll notice, in no place within his entire case does that he bother to present one. For that matter, he never bothers to point out why the conflict must be defined as DIRECT in order for the communication process to be categorized a debate. Thus, it is quite clear that he is guilty of Petito Principii (begging the question). Thus, it is rather obvious that his case rest on nothing. And like the characters in the old cartoons would realize when they were walking on thin air, it immediately plummets below.

Second, when attempting to disprove that possibility and certainty conflict, he simply cites three statements, and screams to the top of his lungs that "There is no direct conflict there." Well in response to that, I must point out that "Yeah, that might that true" is the same as saying "that might be false." This contradicts the stance that is urging absolutism (as in, IT IS TRUE, NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!). Furthermore, it is suggesting that there is indeed a way to decisively conclude [insert resolution]. Once again, my opponent will have to point out what is meant by "direct" and show that "his version" of "direct" conflict is necessary for the entire communication process to be categorized as a debate. Above all, he will have to show that this proves "certainty/possibility" don't directly conflict. So far, he has not even attempted to do this. Therefore, there is no way for him to win this debate in its current direction.

As for PRO providing reasons, Darth Grievouses comment in the comment section of that debate pretty much summarizes my response to this argument.

"Logical Master won hands down. I am not convinced either way that cliffsofdover really likes pizza at all. In fact, I would guess that by the amount of evidence he did not give that he probably does not like pizza at all, and his lack of proof is only because he does not properly know how to express his love of pizza. He could have given examples of his mouth watering at the smell, situations were he will only buy frozen pizza's at the Grocery story, or how a new Pizza Hut deal is the highlight of his life. Rather he let me know how pizza was made. Interesting but not convincing when pertaining to himself."

Lastly, he ends in claiming that it was my job to show that the resolution was not true. As cliffsdover's opponent, I did just that, hence possibility/certainty. Cliffsdover's position suggested that it was certain. In response, I suggested that it being certain IS NOT TRUe based on the evidence. I believe this is once again a matter which my opponent will insist that I did not DIRECTLY show the resolution wasn't true. I'll give him till the next round to come up with an argument for this business which concerns "directly", though I guarentee you that there he is no way he will be able to argue without introducing subjective information.

Now let us proceeed to my own arguments.

It must be pointed out that my opponent in that debate believed that it was his job to get me to believe that pizza was good, hence the following quote "rite theyre, yu admit that you liek pizza. You sed that they look mouthwatering, which means that you like it." Or even saying "Actually Mr. Imsogood instead of saying dat eye donut haff enugh proof to proove that pizza is good, why dont yu proove to mii dat it isnt, 4 iff you dunt, i win this debate, because you are not going aganst me (asss you admitted pizza's good) you are simplee asking me for my reesons without haffing any of ur own" is somewhat different. My opponent agrees with me on my interpretation of that resolution, yet is defending someone who wasn't even attempting to prove said interpretation.

Also, the most fundamental argument for my case is that my opponent NEVER (and I mean NEVER) addresses what my opponent is addressing in his case. For that matter, he never even accuses these points of being flawed. Through not addressing any of my points, he lets them stand as true. Given that my opponent is advocating that "from a judging standpoint", it is his job to show that PRO won based on what HE said. Thus, my opponent is not even upholding his side of the resolution in this debate, thus further reason as to why he cannot win.

The only point more crucial than the above point is that I accussed my opponent of having presented no evidence for his side in that debate. I even explained why a mere online testimony from him is inadmissible and gave my opponent a realistic means of winning the debate. Simply saying "Pizza rocks my world because it does" is not sufficient

With all that said, I stand by my reasons as to why I advocated the Con ballot: "Reason to vote con: My opponent has not defended his case and has basically produced irrelevant information in all of his rounds. At the same time, I provided reasons to support my stance. Thus, I urge you to vote con."

Back to you.
beem0r

Con

Ladies and gentlemen of debate.org, there is one very simple issue being debated here.
Do debaters have to prove that their case is certainly true, or do they just have to show that it is probably true?

Let's look at some examples.

If I start a debate, "Abortion is wrong," I would obviously be arguing that abortion is wrong. However, I am not burdened with arguing that "Abortion is wrong" is a FACT. I simply have to convince the audience that Abortion is probably wrong. Unless something else is stated in the resolution, debaters must show probability, especially for a topic where 100% proof is simply not possible either way.

To say that PRO must show that the resolution is DEFINITELY true, but CON only has to show that there's a possiblity that it's not true - that is to place incredibly uneven burdens on PRO and CON. In order to have a debate, one must argue. In order to argue, there must be a conflict of ideas.

In Logical-Master's debate "Pizza Rocks My World," Logical-Master's position did not conflict with his opponent's position, at all.

His opponent argued that Pizza rocks his world. He did not argue that pizza DEFINITELY rocks his world. If this was the case, then there would be conflict between the resolution and "Pizza might rock his world." However, this is not true.

Imagine that you are in an argument. The person you're arguing with says that the main cause of global warming is the decreasing number of pirates. "That's possible" would not be a valid response from you, at least not if you're trying to argue against them.

My opponent repeatedly states that his opponent in that debate was arguing a position of certainty, but he fails to back that up in this debate or in that one. As is always the case in debate, one must argue probability. Debates are ususally had over normative statements - that is, statements that are not inherently true one way or the other. "Murder is wrong", "Steps should be taken to preserve the environment", and "Pizza rocks my world" are some good examples. Sometimes there are debates that are based on facts, such as "1+1=2", and in this case, it is easy to argue certainty [since certainty actually exists], but these are the overwhelming minority of debates. Certainty was never stated in the debate between Logical-Master and cliffsofdover.

PRO must affirm the resolution, CON must negate it. CON did not negate it, as his position explicitly leaves room for the resolution to be true.

"Yes" and "maybe" have no conflict, unless the "yes" has a "definitely" attached to it. ["Maybe" would be conflicting with the "definitely"]

Since cliffsofdover's position did not indicate certainty, it did not have a "definitely" attached to it. Therefore, "Maybe" is not in conflict with it.

Also, my opponent did state last round that his cliffsofdover did not adequately put forward anything to affirm the resolution. However, him stating at the very beginning that "Piza iz da bestest food! It iz amazin an it tasts good." at least suggests that it does rock his world. Since Logical-Master gave no reason to suggest otherwise in the debate, I have only that to consider when deciding whether I should be convinced by CON or by PRO. Thus, I can only be convinced by PRO, since CON did not give me any reason why Pizza doesn't rock PRO's world. I indeed was convinced by CON's argument that PRO's world being rocked by pizza was possible, but this did not stop me from also being convinced that PRO's world was probably rocked by pizza.

Also, round 4 is up.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

Re: Only one issue being debated here

Friends, specators, debate.orgsman (. . .or women for the anally politically correct much like yours truly), lend me your ears. I come to bury beem0r (beneath the weight of my potent arguments), not to praise him. The noble beem0r hath told you that the only issue being debated here is whether or not debaters have to prove that their case is certainly true, but this, my fellow debaters, is simply a false dichotomy fueled by his attempt TO FOOL YOU. For great justice, don't buy into his deception. As I had suggested in the previous round, my opponent in the other debate did not attempt to respond to my case and was not presenting the arguments which beem0r is presenting right now. Given that this is the case, EVEN ON THE OFF CHANCE YOU BUY INTO CON's ARGUMENTS WHICH DECLARE THE "possibility/certainty" STANCE TO BE FALLACIOUS, IT MATTERS LITTLE AS MY OPPONENT IN THE OTHER DEBATE HAD ESSENTIALLY CONCEDED TO MY CASE THROUGH RAISING NO OBJECTIONS AGAINST MY CLAIMS!!!! The only possible way CON could even attempt to counter these facts is by advocating that judges are to judge based on their own knowledge rather than what takes place inside the debate (which is still a flawed stance), but as you can see, CON never attempted to do this in any of his rounds so far. To attempt to do so on his final round would be abusive since I have no means of responding to new arguments.

With that said, there is really no reason for you to read anything else which he states on the matter on possibility/certainty. In fact, one could say that you may as well skip his third round and vote PRO when you have the opportunity, but to pacify CON, I will refute his arguments anyway.

-------------------------
Re Abortion Example
-------------------------

Alas, CON's attempts to find a flaw in the possibility/certainty tactic is futile. First, this example is an obvious false analogy. Let us compare my reasoning for the "Pizza rocks my world debate" to the reason CON provides for abortion. Quite clearly, I argued that there was no admissible evidence that would prove cliffsdover's claim true. As CON eloquently puts it elsewhere, "His personal testimony is not valid proof, since it is in his best interest to lie if the resolution is false [...] needs to get an unrelated third party to validate his claim before we are required to acknowledge it at all." This wasn't simply an issue that concerned the notion that although there is some evidence to suggest my opponent's case was true, he couldn't prove it 100%. This was an issue that simply concerned the fact that my opponent had ABSOLUTELY NO VALID EVIDENCE to support his claim. And without evidence, I am justified in suggesting that we have no valid means of determining whether or not the resolution is true (one must also note that this strategy can be pulled when there is an insignificant amount of evidence, but don't pay too much mind to this as this topic doesn't concern that theory). Of course, I could very well argue that there was no valid evidence to make a conclusion on the matter of abortion being wrong (as I believe there are some moral theories which compromise the idea of anything truly being wrong), but this is besides the point. The point is that this example and the reasoning behind it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

--------------------------------------------
Re: No conflict with the resolution
--------------------------------------------

Basically, my opponent is insisting that the following statements are the same:

Statement 1: I like pizza.
Statement 2: I'm not sure as to whether or not I like pizza, thus I may or may not like pizza.

Do these statements sound remotely the same to you? My thoughts exactly.

Generally, when one says "I like pizza", they mean they like pizza. In such a statement, there is nothing to suggest otherwise, thus we take it as a claim which promotes certainty. Thus, this would fulfill the condition which CON had suggested (that "I definitely like pizza" is what is being expressed). Of course, even if you don't buy that, you cannot ignore the fact that I may or may not like pizza and "I like pizza" express two different meanings. Thus, I would still have fulfilled my role in conflicting with the resolution as CON.

-------------------------------
Global Warming analogy
-------------------------------

Like the previous analogy, this is merely a strawman version of my case. Allow me to correct what CON is saying:

Corrected Version: Imagine that you are in an argument. The person you're arguing with says that the main cause of global warming is the decreasing number of pirates. "There is no evidence or there is not a significant amount of evidence that would allow us to make that conclusion, thus we can only say that it may or may not be true at this point" would not be a valid response from you, at least not if you're trying to argue against them.

When you put it like that, it not being a valid response simply makes no sense. It's sort of like saying that the position of agnosticism is invalid (wait, no, it's exactly like that).

------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Repeatedly states his point without backing up
------------------------------------------------------------

This is basically a repeat of what is said above. I've pretty much killed this horse through pointing out that cliffsdover presented no evidence for his case (even when I had offered him a means). Furthermore, I've repeatedly backed up my claims concerning certainty, but if you don't buy that, my above rebuttal on "No conflict with the resolution" should suffice.

--------------------------------------------
Re: Yes and maybe have no conflict
--------------------------------------------

Since CON has pretty much dropped my rebuttals concerning "direct" conflict, it is rather apparent that he means no conflict PERIOD. As I had said earlier, all it will take is a simple definition to annihilate this argument.

yes-http://www.askoxford.com...
maybe- http://www.askoxford.com...

Pay particular attention to what is listed under the noun for "yes"; notice the term "decision." Here's where CON's argument collapse entirely: When you say yes, you've made a decision. When you say maybe, you haven't made a decision (incidentally, one could say that because of this, even "no" has more in common with "yes" than it does with "maybe). Remember how I've been advocating that there is no way to conclude based on the present evidence when one makes use of the "possibility/certainty" tactic? It turns out that I wasn't full of hot air. This is where it hits home to as it reflects on my case. *takes a bow*

-----------------------------------------------------------
Re: cliffsdover did suggest that pizza rocks his world
-----------------------------------------------------------

I agree, HOWEVER, he never presented any evidence to back up this claim. Furthermore, he still believed that the purpose of the argument was to determine whether or not pizza was good. There is no getting around this fact, and is hence why defeat is certain regardless of what CON states in his final round.

CLOSING STATEMENTS:

I believe that CON and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that the resolution is correct and that CON has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following:

1) Cliffsdover never presented valid evidence to back up his claim.

2) Cliffsdover never presented the arguments which CON is presenting.

3) Cliffsdover disagrees with CON when it concerns the meaning of the resolution.

4) Cliffsdover raised no real objections to my arguments.

5) I've proven that "Yes" and "maybe" conflict.

With that said, I thank my CON for the debate and I thank the audience for reading.
beem0r

Con

========
Only one issue
========

First, my opponent makes the argument that cliffsofdover did not make any of the arguments I am making. That is true. However, my arguments are about debate analysis. I am arguing that looking at the debate, we cannot see CON's argument as a valid negation of the resolution, which is his burden.

Next, my opponenet claims that his opponent automatically accepts L-M's arguments that he did not respond to [the possibility argument, in particular]. Let's look at an example, and we might see why.

Resolution: So I herd u liek mudkips
Pro: So I herd u liek mudkips
Con: My opponenet simply MIGHT have herd I liek mudkips

Pro needs not respond to CON's argument, as CON's argument does not invalidate PRO's stance. CON even EXPLICITLY left room for PRO to be correct.

The same is true in "Pizza Rocks My World."

========
Example
========
I'm skipping this one. Call my original example here flawed if you will, I just don't want to have to say the same thing 10 places. The argument here will be the "No conflict" argument, which is up next anyway.

========
No conflict
========
When I said no conflict, I meant no resolutional conflict. I may even have said this. The resolution "Pizza rocks my world" was never refuted by L-M. As CON, it was his job to NEGATE the resolution. PRO provided evidence, and while it was refuted, at least it was presented. CON did not provide evidence for his negation of the resolution, and his position openly acknowledged that the resolution might be right.
As CON, one might be familiar with the phrasing, "I am "Against" the above topic of debate."
However, CON did not argue against the TOPIC, he argued against PRO's reasons, and partially AGREED with the topic. As I have said before, CON must negate the resolution, and I've just shown that it's supposed to be that way on Debate.org at least.

The simple fact that CON presented a different case than PRO does not mean CON did his job. "Pizza Rocks My World" and "So I herd u liek mudkipz" have completely different meanings, yet the latter is not a stance CON could have taken and won, either.

========
Analogy
========
Like the example, it's kind of meaningless now. I proved my point without examples above. And without new arguments, either, I simply expounded on old ones.

========
No evidence from cliffsofdover
========
If we accept that cliffsofdover had NO evidence, then we should vote it a tie, since L-M gave no evidence to the contrary. L-M gave no arguments that negated the resolution, he simply negated is opponent's evidence. So in this case, it would be a tie, which means L-M should not win, which neggates the resolution. However, it can usually be said that a rebuttal such as "we can't trust his own testimony on the matter" does not completely eliminate the statements, it simply makes them much less meaningful. Thus, cliffs still had some evidence, however insignificant. This would mean cliffs won, which means L-M loses, which is a negation of the resolution.

========
Yes and maybe
========
I kind of covered this already, but I'll do it again.

Yes and maybe are indeed distinct in meaning. However, saying maybe does not infringe on the possibiliuty of yes being true.

Maybe is special in that it does not take a stance. It allows for either yes or no to be true. And it is L-M's job as CON to show that Yes is not a viable option, something maybe fails to do.

========
Closing statements
========
1. He may have, by claiming that piza is da bestest food, or whatever he said. True, you made a rebuttal to this, but from a debate judging standpoint, points do not have to be seen as either 100% valid or 0% valid. Your rebuttal simply made his statement much less valid. But since it was the only evidence one way or the other, PRO should win. Especially since CON openly stated that the resolution might be true.

2. I am arguing, with you, about debate judging. There's no reason for him to make arguments about judging in a debate about pizza rocking his world. I'm arguing that a judge looking at the debate should not vote L-M.

3. cliffsofdover disagrees with me when it comes to the meaning of the resolution. It's rather irrelevant, though.

4. I showed why this makes sense in "ONly one issue" above.

5. They conflict, but maybe does not negate yes. Yes negates maybe, though. Since it is CON's burden to negate the resolution, CON would have to bring a "no" to the table, since that's what can negate a yes.

Alright, that'll be it. 'Twas fun.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Send me a private message on face book, and I'll reveal everything in detail.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
seriously man, why? Did someone hack into your account?!?!
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
@ Pluto: heh, perhaps I've finally gone mad. :P

@ everyone else: C'mon, 37%? Is that all you've got? My great grandmother could peg my account better than that and she is not even alive!
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Logical-Master, what are you doing? Why are you trying to lose?
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
There you go. 46% If you create some extra accounts, you should be able to get it down to 10% by the evening. Happy I could help. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
HA!!!! Someone just went and voted against me on all of my debates. Hey guy/gal who is doing this, let me help you with that. Hopefully, with teamwork, we can get my win ration all the way down to zero.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
LOL!!! (25 characters are here).
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Have you seen his new avvy? I made him change it. It's pretty funneh.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
By the way, I believe you have an impersonator (or a fan): http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Man, do I not feel like doing these debates right now. I'm having too much fun with Mass Effect. Oh well, best respond soon, rather than allow a potential debate concerning whether or not I cheated while trying to post at the last minute slip through.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 massvideogamer 8 years ago
massvideogamer
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 JUDGE 9 years ago
JUDGE
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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