The Instigator
revleader5
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

George W. Bush illegally stole to 2000 election.

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: 5/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,065 times Debate No: 4202
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (14)

 

revleader5

Pro

This is 5 rounds. I'm requesting that whoever takes it doesn't forfeit a single round. In the first round you could debate if you want but I made it 5 so that I could get a solid 4 round debate out there. This first round is just so I don't forget to post this. :)
Paradigm_Lost

Con

Since you cannot give positive evidence of a negative, the contender could not possibly make a first argument.

The individual making the claim has the burden of proof. Since it is you declaring that President Bush stole the 2000 election, it is up to you to give the first argument. I can only then rebut to your criticisms.
Debate Round No. 1
revleader5

Pro

Yes, yes. I'm sorry I only posted it in 5 rounds so that I wouldn't forget to post. The first round was basically nothing, anyway...

There clear evidence that 22% of the overseas ballots are illegal under U.S. election laws(1). Katherine Harris, a Floridian henchman of Jed Bush, G.W's brother, sent out a memo to all ballot counters saying to include all ballots whether postmarked before the deadline or not. To defend this, they compiled a montage of sob stories with overseas troops saying that they just wanted their vote to count(2).

Disprove those?

(1)http://archives.cnn.com...
(2)Stupid White Men, By Michael Moore.
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"There clear evidence that 22% of the overseas ballots are illegal under U.S. election laws."

If it was as clear as you allege, then George W. Bush would NOT have been president for eight years. If any misconduct beyond speculation occurred, then GWB would not still be the the president. And if it were so impossible for him to win the first time, how did he win in 2004?

So lets revisit those days to uncover what had happened.

The 2000 presidential election was extremely close by all accounts so that, literally, the country was divided in two in popular votes. Each candidate won approximately 48% of the vote. That's very close. So close in fact that every vote counted, including absentee ballots.

What had happened in Florida, aside from their inept balloting system, was that many in the media forgot that Florida is on two time zones, not one. While the majority of Florida runs on Eastern Standard Time (EST), the panhandle, known for its more conservative views, is on Central Standard Time (CST). The media called the election prematurely when all of the votes had not been tallied. The networks were forced to retract the victory for Gore.

This perceived abnormality prompted Gore to demand a recount, which they did. While Gore won the popular vote by a narrow margin of about 500 votes, he still lost the electoral college.

A firestorm promptly ensued which called the attention of the United States Supreme Court. What was decided, 7 to 2, was that recounting votes was itself unconstitutional. They thus turned it over to the Florida Supreme Court. A lawsuit incurred in Bush v. Gore. But in the final analysis, Bush was declared.

"Katherine Harris, a Floridian henchman of Jed Bush, G.W's brother, sent out a memo to all ballot counters saying to include all ballots whether postmarked before the deadline or not. To defend this, they compiled a montage of sob stories with overseas troops saying that they just wanted their vote to count(2)."

If I were in Gore's shoes, I would have done the same thing he did and not ceded defeat, since there is some legitimate basis for suspicion. However, there is nothing, beyond anecdotal evidence and suspicion, to suggest that any misconduct was perpetrated, least of all by GWB himself, which is the premise of your debate.

About the overseas ballots: It is no mystery that the US military has always been more highly in favor of conservative views. And since they are US citizens who are fighting for all US citizens, you're damn right their vote should count. In fact, I was in the military at that time. They attempted to get us ballots but we were operational at that time and my unit could not get our votes in. Regardless, of those that did, why shouldn't their vote count? Why is that a "sob story?"

In closing, my opponent made an audacious claim specifically aimed at President Bush. He then should provide unimpeachable evidence that misconduct has occurred in order to win this debate.

As to your sources, I cannot use Michael Moore's movie as a legitimate source because I have not seen the movie. And even supposing that I have, I also don't own it. I therefore cannot reference it since I do not know what specifics it entails.
Debate Round No. 2
revleader5

Pro

"If it was as clear as you allege, then George W. Bush would NOT have been president for eight years. If any misconduct beyond speculation occurred, then GWB would not still be the the president. And if it were so impossible for him to win the first time, how did he win in 2004?"

What my opponent fails to realize is that there are allegations that he also stole the 2004 election(1)(2). what he also fails ro realize is that this is a debate about the 2000 election. The 2000 election obviously occured before the 2004 election, so right now, let's just act like the 2004 election doesn't exist. Also, the story on GWB stealing the 2000 election has yet to be fully blown. Nobody has really listened.

"The 2000 presidential election was extremely close by all accounts so that, literally, the country was divided in two in popular votes. Each candidate won approximately 48% of the vote. That's very close. So close in fact that every vote counted, including absentee ballots."

This is true. This is also the point where things began to get very hairy involing absentee ballots.

"What had happened in Florida, aside from their inept balloting system, was that many in the media forgot that Florida is on two time zones, not one. While the majority of Florida runs on Eastern Standard Time (EST), the panhandle, known for its more conservative views, is on Central Standard Time (CST). The media called the election prematurely when all of the votes had not been tallied. The networks were forced to retract the victory for Gore.

This perceived abnormality prompted Gore to demand a recount, which they did. While Gore won the popular vote by a narrow margin of about 500 votes, he still lost the electoral college."

That is not true. Gore won by a margin of 543,895 votes(3). Also, it came down to adsentee ballots. These are minor details trying to sidetrack everyone from noticing the main idea. Many people will get confused by that because what you are saying is true and makes sense but is unrelated.

"A firestorm promptly ensued which called the attention of the United States Supreme Court. What was decided, 7 to 2, was that recounting votes was itself unconstitutional. They thus turned it over to the Florida Supreme Court. A lawsuit incurred in Bush v. Gore. But in the final analysis, Bush was declared."

That is true. But doesn't anything seem odd when recounting votes aka democracy, is declared unconstitutional?

"If I were in Gore's shoes, I would have done the same thing he did and not ceded defeat, since there is some legitimate basis for suspicion. However, there is nothing, beyond anecdotal evidence and suspicion, to suggest that any misconduct was perpetrated, least of all by GWB himself, which is the premise of your debate."

Well I like how you shed some light on the fact that it is greatly possible that he stole the election, which he did.

"About the overseas ballots: It is no mystery that the US military has always been more highly in favor of conservative views. And since they are US citizens who are fighting for all US citizens, you're damn right their vote should count. In fact, I was in the military at that time. They attempted to get us ballots but we were operational at that time and my unit could not get our votes in. Regardless, of those that did, why shouldn't their vote count? Why is that a "sob story"?"

Two facts, number one is that if by conservative, you mean war-mongers, you're wrong. All war-mongers are supposed to be liberals. Take a look at our history before GWB. Bush has made us forget that the Republicans hate war and that Democrats are for it. Also it is truly a sob story because if you want your damn vote to count, you get it in on time. There are plenty of soldiers who got their vote counted when it was late and there were plenty who didn't. In counties where GWB won, the total for illegal ballots counted was 4 of 5, where Gore won, 2 out of 5(4).

"In closing, my opponent made an audacious claim specifically aimed at President Bush. He then should provide unimpeachable evidence that misconduct has occurred in order to win this debate."

Why wouldn't it be? He is the one who stole the election no? And also, check out the date on Stupid White MEn by Michael Moore, it was printed in 2001. It was out before 9/11 and before any stupid wars by Bush. This isn't a bias against a war-mongering conservative(oxymoron), it is a bias against a man who stole the election.

"As to your sources, I cannot use Michael Moore's movie as a legitimate source because I have not seen the movie. And even supposing that I have, I also don't own it. I therefore cannot reference it since I do not know what specifics it entails."

Take the book out of a library, google it, do whatever. Don't dance around the facts. Give me some cold hard facts. No more of these opinionated responses. I'm looking for a debate not a freaking Letter to the Editor. (Just kidding of course)

Sources---
(1)http://www.freepress.org...
(2)http://www.salon.com...
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4)http://archive.democrats.com...
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"the story on GWB stealing the 2000 election has yet to be fully blown."

These are the results from the Federal Election Commission, a Federally run non-partisan organization headed to ensure the equity of elections.

http://www.fec.gov...

If anyone was to uncover fraud of any kind it would be this group. Now I certainly don't think GWB has done a bang-up job in the White House. And I certainly would be deeply interested in prosecuting anyone found tampering with a federal election, especially one that has as deep and profound an impact as the presidential election. But so far you, along with other conspiracy theorists, have never presented any empirical evidence of misconduct or fraud.

At most, you point to Katherine Harris, a Republican of Florida, and derisively refer to her as a "henchman," and Jeb Bush, a Republican Governor of Florida and brother of GWB. That is completely circumstantial. Unless you can make some kind of reasonable tie, its baseless speculation.

"Gore won by a margin of 543,895 votes."

It does not matter who wins the popular vote in America. I have long advocated that it should, but the US prefers the electoral college. The reason they do this is to give each state the same amount of leverage. Reason why is because the state of Rhode Island doesn't have anywhere near the same population as California. By winning states, it attempts to even the playing field for smaller states.

"In the American system of presidential elections, the electoral vote determines the winner, and Bush won this count, although Gore received more votes (called the "popular vote"). This was the fourth time in American history that a candidate won the presidency without receiving a plurality of the popular vote; it also happened in the elections of 1824, 1876 and 1888."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"These are minor details trying to sidetrack everyone from noticing the main idea."

It isn't a sidetrack and it isn't minor at all. I am explaining why Bush legally won the election.

"But doesn't anything seem odd when recounting votes aka democracy, is declared unconstitutional?"

Are you know indicting the Supreme Court in on fraud? It isn't odd that it be viewed unconstitutional if it is in fact unconstitutional.

"If any State shall have provided...for its final determination of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State...at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination...shall be conclusive" - United States Code 3:5

"I like how you shed some light on the fact that it is greatly possible that he stole the election"

I didn't say it was greatly possible. What I said was that if I were in Gore's shoes, I would demand a recount as well since it was so close.

"which he did."

Then by all means substantiate it.

"All war-mongers are supposed to be liberals."

Ummmmm... How do you figure that? Do you know what a liberal is?

"Bush has made us forget that the Republicans hate war and that Democrats are for it."

Bush Jr (R): Iraq, Afghanistan
Clinton (D): Somalia, Haiti
Bush Sr. (R): Iraq
Reagan (R): Cold War, Grenade, Panama
Carter (D): Nothing

Usually we see that modern-day democrats, starting with Carter, are the very antithesis of it. In fact, isn't that what liberals usually charge conservatives with -- that they are too apt to opt for for instead of more diplomacy?

My opponent quoted me saying:

"In closing, my opponent made an audacious claim specifically aimed at President Bush. He then should provide unimpeachable evidence that misconduct has occurred in order to win this debate."

He then retorts:

"Why wouldn't it be? He is the one who stole the election no?"

You haven't substantiated your claim, whatsoever! You are going to have to give myself and your audience something more credible than mere suspicion. Because if they glove don't fit, you have to acquit. :)
Debate Round No. 3
revleader5

Pro

What makes your link to the FEC any more right than my links? Who decided that your link is right and mine are wrong?

"If anyone was to uncover fraud of any kind it would be this group. Now I certainly don't think GWB has done a bang-up job in the White House. And I certainly would be deeply interested in prosecuting anyone found tampering with a federal election, especially one that has as deep and profound an impact as the presidential election. But so far you, along with other conspiracy theorists, have never presented any empirical evidence of misconduct or fraud."

That is incorrect. I have laid down the facts that obviously prove that GWB didn't win.

"At most, you point to Katherine Harris, a Republican of Florida, and derisively refer to her as a "henchman," and Jeb Bush, a Republican Governor of Florida and brother of GWB. That is completely circumstantial. Unless you can make some kind of reasonable tie, its baseless speculation."

What is completley circumstantial. How is there no reasonable tie? Katherine Harris of FLORIDA, the state governed by GWB's cousin, sends out a memo saying to count ballots whether they are legal or not? How about when asked for the computer to be searched, she agreed but first her "Tech Specialist" had to check it for some bugs. The media then found nothing.

"It does not matter who wins the popular vote in America. I have long advocated that it should, but the US prefers the electoral college. The reason they do this is to give each state the same amount of leverage. Reason why is because the state of Rhode Island doesn't have anywhere near the same population as California. By winning states, it attempts to even the playing field for smaller states. "

I realize that. You just made an error and I corrected you.

" "In the American system of presidential elections, the electoral vote determines the winner, and Bush won this count, although Gore received more votes (called the "popular vote"). This was the fourth time in American history that a candidate won the presidency without receiving a plurality of the popular vote; it also happened in the elections of 1824, 1876 and 1888." "

Again, you made an error, I corrected you.

" "These are minor details trying to sidetrack everyone from noticing the main idea." "

"It isn't a sidetrack and it isn't minor at all. I am explaining why Bush legally won the election."

No, those were minor details you said before, which had nothing to do with the main picture.

" "But doesn't anything seem odd when recounting votes aka democracy, is declared unconstitutional?" "

"Are you know indicting the Supreme Court in on fraud? It isn't odd that it be viewed unconstitutional if it is in fact unconstitutional. "

I don't understand where you are going with that.

" "If any State shall have provided...for its final determination of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State...at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination...shall be conclusive" - United States Code 3:5 "

Source please. I just want to read up more on that.

" "I like how you shed some light on the fact that it is greatly possible that he stole the election" "

"I didn't say it was greatly possible. What I said was that if I were in Gore's shoes, I would demand a recount as well since it was so close. "

" "which he did." "

"Then by all means substantiate it."

Substantiate GWB stealing the election. What do you think that I've been doing?

" "All war-mongers are supposed to be liberals." "

"Ummmmm... How do you figure that? Do you know what a liberal is? "

Seems that you don't know what a liberal is. Check out every president we've gone to war under and every president who got us out of war. Seeing the comparissons.?

" "Bush has made us forget that the Republicans hate war and that Democrats are for it." "

"Bush Jr (R): Iraq, Afghanistan
Clinton (D): Somalia, Haiti" - You forgot Iraq on this one.
"Bush Sr. (R): Iraq
Reagan (R): Cold War, Grenade, Panama
Carter (D): Nothing" - Are you insane? Does American students held as prisoners held for 444 days ring a bell?

"Usually we see that modern-day democrats, starting with Carter, are the very antithesis of it. In fact, isn't that what liberals usually charge conservatives with -- that they are too apt to opt for for instead of more diplomacy?"

Interesting enough, but proving my point not yours, correct?

My opponent quoted me saying:

"In closing, my opponent made an audacious claim specifically aimed at President Bush. He then should provide unimpeachable evidence that misconduct has occurred in order to win this debate."

He then retorts:

"Why wouldn't it be? He is the one who stole the election no?"

"You haven't substantiated your claim, whatsoever! You are going to have to give myself and your audience something more credible than mere suspicion. Because if they glove don't fit, you have to acquit. :)"

My opponent fails to remember 1, the majority of people believe OJ was guilty, which should be a little hint for all of you(1). Also, all he has done is deny what I say by claiming it makes no sense. I am laying out the undeniable facts here and all he can do is say things like,

"At most, you point to Katherine Harris, a Republican of Florida, and derisively refer to her as a "henchman," and Jeb Bush, a Republican Governor of Florida and brother of GWB. That is completely circumstantial. Unless you can make some kind of reasonable tie, its baseless speculation."

Well I completley proved that Harris was one of the conspirators involved in stealing the election for GWB.

SOURCES----
(1)http://www.apopularitycontest.com...
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"I have laid down the facts that obviously prove that GWB didn't win."

You haven't proved even one fact yet, and everyone is going to see that.

"What is completley circumstantial. How is there no reasonable tie? Katherine Harris of FLORIDA, the state governed by GWB's cousin, sends out a memo saying to count ballots whether they are legal or not? How about when asked for the computer to be searched, she agreed but first her "Tech Specialist" had to check it for some bugs."

We would all like to see this memo. You've mentioned it a few times but we are all still wondering where the elusive memo is. Try and remember that this went to a Congressional hearing. We aren't talking about a little tribunal where a couple of hokey people got together in the swamp. This case went to both the Supreme Court of the US and Florida. There was a gigantic lawsuit. Nor Bush or his circle ever indicted on any charge of tampering. Surely if this memo that you speak was so condemning it would have... well... condemned him. And since the man has been in the White House for just shy of 8 years, it is evident that no misconduct has ever been determined. You therefore are grasping at straws.

"I realize that. You just made an error and I corrected you."

No, you didn't. You seemed to think that the popular vote was all that was needed. It isn't. I had to clarify for you.

"Again, you made an error, I corrected you."

Sure about that? Let's look at my second post:

"While Gore won the popular vote by a narrow margin of about 500 votes, he still lost the electoral college."

If you are referring to the 500 votes, I was very obviously referring to Florida, not the US total. Here, look at the numbers again:

http://www.fec.gov...

The difference comes out to 537 votes. But as I said, it does not matter, because what they were both trying to do was win delegates. So, no, you didn't correct ANYTHING. And we are still waiting for you to present actual evidence that Bush stole the election.

"I don't understand where you are going with that."

It sounded as if you were implicating that the Supreme Court was suppressing evidence for Bush.

"Source please. I just want to read up more on that."

Certainly. (emboldened letters mine)

"If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be CONCLUSIVE, and shall govern in the COUNTING of the ELECTORAL VOTES as provided in the CONSTITUTION, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned."

Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu...

"What do you think that I've been doing?"

Making baseless and unfounded assertions.

"Seems that you don't know what a liberal is. Check out every president we've gone to war under and every president who got us out of war. Seeing the comparissons.?"

... I just posted that for you. And what it showed is that Republican presidents have gone to war more than liberal one's. Now I definitely have strong suspicions that you don't know what the word "liberal" means.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

"Clinton (D): Somalia, Haiti" - You forgot Iraq on this one."

No, I didn't. Bill Clinton has NEVER gone to war with Iraq. Never.... Ever.... Bush Sr and Bush Jr did. Clinton, as in Hillary and not Bill, voted for the war in Iraq and then retracted.

"Are you insane? Does American students held as prisoners held for 444 days ring a bell?"

Yeah it does, except that nothing militarily was accomplished. I hardly would call that a "war" since it was negotiated through diplomacy and not violence.

"Interesting enough, but proving my point not yours, correct?"

Not in the slightest. I can pretty much guarantee that Democrats on this forum would take great offense at being called "war-mongerers."

"My opponent fails to remember 1, the majority of people believe OJ was guilty, which should be a little hint for all of you"

This is 1. Completely immaterial to the subject, and 2. Is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to consensus.

"all he has done is deny what I say by claiming it makes no sense."

I've never said this. All I have done is asked for you to, you know, give some kind of evidence.

You argument thus far is:

1. Katherine Harris is a Republican from Florida
a. You allege she sent out a memo but have provided no details to corroborate it.
2. Jeb Bush is the governor of Florida and GWB's brother.
b. Presumably that means that he has the power to tamper with official ballots, but you have 0 evidence supporting it.

That, in a nutshell, is your entire argument. Forgive me if I'm not moved by it.

"Well I completley proved that Harris was one of the conspirators involved in stealing the election for GWB."

I would like for you to tell me what "proof" constitutes in your world.
Debate Round No. 4
revleader5

Pro

I love this debate. I'll gladly go into a part 2 with you if you'd like, anyway...

It is a well-known fact that criminals can't vote in Florida. It is also a well-known fact that in the 2000 primaries, Al Gore was cleaning up with the African-American vote. Katherine Harris compiled a list of people, the majority of which were African-American and said that they were felons and couldn't vote. The list had 57,700 voters on it.

*400 people on Katherine "Henchman" Harris's list of "felons" were convicted of a crime from 2007, keep in mind that this list was compiled in 2000.

*People were convicted of a crime before they were born.

*54% of the list was African-American.

*4,000 of the names had no conviction date for the "felon"

*If you were black and anyone with your name had committed a crime anywhere in the U.S., you were listed as a felon.

*15% of the "felons" weren't even convicted of a crime. (Remember that Bush 'won' by 537 votes.)

*90.2% of the people on the list were proven innocent of any crime they were charged with.

Another list, submitted by the Governor of Texas in 2000 was submitted of 8,000 "felons" who had moved to Florida.

*93% of the people on the list were incorrect.

Clayton Roberts, one of George W. Bush's as I like to call them "henchmen" was talked about by Greg Palast...

"PALAST: They will be putting our evidence to Database Technologies. Their vice-president told us that "manual verification by telephone calls" does not mean ringing people up to check they have got the right person. So were they paid to produce a list which they knew would name thousands of innocent black people? In fact DBT told Newsnight that Clayton Roberts and the State of Florida: "... wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon." So did they use their powers to prevent the count of 20,000 votes for the Democrats? You don't have to be black. In Palm Beach, America's privileged nurse their tans and their anger."(1)

According to Clayton Roberts, manual verification by telephone calls doesn't mean calling anyone.

Basically tons of people who weren't felons were cheated out of voting(and you can't say well, Bush won out of the people that did vote because you know damn well he didn't do that either, and don't say no, I don't know that because you do.) Also, illegal absentee ballots were submitted, God Bless our troops but their illegal ballots were carefully selected to ones that would help George W. Bush. For instance the average amount of illegal ballots in counties where Bush won were 4 of 5, where he lost, 2 of 5. And finally, some machines were rigged(2).

Thank you. Please vote based on who had the better argument.

Sources---
(1)http://www.gregpalast.com...
(2)
Paradigm_Lost

Con

Paradigm_Lost forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by unvery 8 years ago
unvery
hmm...well, this argument's not going anywhere.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Unfortunately, the supreme court disagrees with pro. Bush won the election legally. Whether or not the laws that allowed him to do so are just. That's where you should focus your efforts. Thank God the laws suck, though, or we'd be in even bigger trouble than we are now. As poor as Bush has been in most areas, Gore is a complete moron who cares for nothing but media attention and power, ergo, Global Warming alarmism. As stupid as he is, I can't believe the guy can even dress himself.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Well, I would forfeit my last round too if I had my "behind" handed to me for 4 rounds.

Pro dominated this debate, not by logic alone, but by mere fact.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wesswll 6 years ago
wesswll
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 Hypnodoc 8 years ago
Hypnodoc
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 unvery 8 years ago
unvery
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 yoon172 8 years ago
yoon172
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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 AEQUITAS 8 years ago
AEQUITAS
revleader5Paradigm_LostTied
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