The Instigator
ReaganConservative
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
left_wing_mormon
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points

Global Warming alarmists...Haha!

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.
Started: 2/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,478 times Debate No: 2947
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (17)
Votes (16)

 

ReaganConservative

Pro

Alarmists:

If you drive a car you're a hypocrite. If you run any kind of furnace this winter you're a hypocrite. If you use AC or fans or both during the summer you're a hypocrite. If you turn on lights you're a hypocrite. If you are seeing these words on a computer you're a hypocrite. If you live in a house built of any kind of materials (especially wood) you're a hypocrite. If you watch TV or movies you're a hypocrite. If you use running water (especially heated water) you're a hypocrite. If you have a job you're a hypocrite. If you go to school you're a hypocrite. If you cook food you're a hypocrite. If you buy cooked food you're a hypocrite. If you exercise you're a hypocrite. If you live you're a hypocrite. Basically the only way you can not be a hypocrite (except breathing, you can have that as a freebie) is if you walk everywhere, but don't run, that increases your heart rate which makes you breathe more which of course emits more co2. You can't be in a building of any kind, they're all made of materials all of which requires co2 to be emitted to produce said materials, sometimes they're made of wood which obviously cuts down trees and trees turn that evil co2 to oxygen for us. You must kill animals with your bare hands to eat, but you can't cook the meat. You must drink from a freshwater stream, no running water is allowed. During the winter you must tough it out, you can't use any kind of fuel for heat, certainly not wood; you may kill animals for their fur to keep warm, but again it must be done with your bare hands and, without lifting your heart rate for that matter. Basically you must live like a caveman without the fire, or you're a filthy hypocrite. Shut up.

The only thing constant about climate is change. Until people can grasp the concept that we can't fully understand the climate, we need to be careful until we do. But if we really do know so much about the climate and humans can make it warmer, and we're attempting to make it colder, I'd request a global warming of about 40 degrees in the winter and a global cooling of about 10 degrees in the summer with a slight global cool breeze. That'd be nice.

Gore's movie exaggerated the water level rise in his film 17 times higher than the HIGH END of the worst case scenario of the IPCC report predictions. What a scammer. Oh, and I'm not sure if you knew this, but GE owns NBC. You know, little ol' NBC that has never offered an opposing opinion of their analysis. Why? Well because their parent can make more money, of course. Did you know that GE's lobbyist budget is 4 times higher than that of every oil producer worldwide combined? Now, with a voice like that you can turn the heads of alot of stupid people. Scam. Australia is trying to replace all light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs on the continent by 2010. Unfortunately for them, that would reduce man's emmissions by .003%. Worthless. But don't worry, GE is getting all of that money. Scam. The IPCC made clear that livestock is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases, however the media (including NBC) completely ignored that little stat, you know, because they can't make massive profits from livestock. Scam. Also, livestock is responsible for 65% of a much less publicized greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide, that warms the planet about 296 times more than co2. Again, you're not hearing these things for a reason, the only agenda these facts stand to fit is PETA's. Scam.

The top ten politician recipiants of the global warming lobby money:

1. John Kerry
2. Al Gore
3. Paul Wellstone
4. Barbara Boxer
5. Bill Bradley
6. Mark Udall
7. Jay Inslee
8. Jeanne Shaheen
9. Jean Carnahan
10. Barack Hussein Obama

Need I point out their party affiliation? Need I point out the reasons they're trying so hard to pass Carbon Tax and Carbon Credit legislation? Well, they're all far leftwing Democrats and they're trying to pass said legislation because GE pays them to and GE stands to make BILLIONS from said legislation. Scam.

Gore claimed that if we don't change our ways in the next ten years we will send the planet into an irreversable tailspin. What you may not have heard is that the projected costs for drastic changes over just ten years in the US is as high as 26 trillion dollars. Now considering the US is only worth about 2.7 trillion dollars a year, without calculating our national debt into consideration, if we spent every cent we produce every year on fixing this scam, we would have to spend up to 10 trillion dollars a year. Now, assume Gore is right (he's not) and we actually bought into his scam (we won't) the US would be in such economic ruin the world would probably fall apart anyways. And all that over a theory.

I'm getting off track here. People are always saying "It's science, you can't refute it unless you're a scientist." Oh you bet I can. The pictures I've seen of the ice caps melting seem pretty astonishing, they really do. But given that they've apparently lost millions of tons of ice, where is that water going? The coastlines aren't rising. You can say they are, but I know they're not. Scientists knew in the 70s there was so much pollution that the Earth would soon see another ice age. Well how soon? After all it's been almost 40 years and now you already changed your mind to Global Warming, a more elaborate hoax to make people believe the ice is coming. And if the ice caps have lost 60% of their ice and not a single coastline on the planet has been flooded, I'm quite certain that if we lost the other 40% we're going to be just fine.

Ever heard of the carbon tax? Bad idea. Since everything you do is killing the planet, you should pay liberals money for it. Just liberals doing what they do best, scaring people into giving them more power so they are more free to tax you more and steal more of your money. And accomplishing nothing by doing it, might I add. Global Warming is all about big government.

Al Gore is a politician that talks about global warming then gets in a Prius and drives to his private jet and flies home to a mansion with 20 rooms, 8 bathrooms, a pool, pool house, and a guest house all powered by natural gas. This house uses more energy in one month than the average American household uses in a year.
By the way, George W. Bush's house is 4,000 square ft, with 4 bedrooms, designed by an architecture professor, integrates every green feature, and most of all uses no fossil fuels.

Basically it's pretty much understood that the planet is getting warmer, sure it's science. However in today's vocabulary there's a difference in 'global warming' and 'climate change'. Global warming is the scam, climate change just happens and it always will. The only power humanity yields that possesses the ability to destroy the planet is nuclear weaponry, and for that to destroy the planet it would take dozens detonating within a short period of time.

The agenda behind the hysteria:

http://epw.senate.gov...=

http://epw.senate.gov...

http://epw.senate.gov...

A challenge to the phony consensus:

http://epw.senate.gov...

http://www.reason.com...

Alarmists are Fascists:

http://youtube.com...

http://youtube.com...

**********Smoking Gun:**********

http://www.fys.ku.dk...

http://www.fys.ku.dk...

http://www.oism.org...

http://www.climateaudit.org...

http://www.climatechangeissues.com...

http://www.larouchepub.com...
left_wing_mormon

Con

left_wing_mormon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
ReaganConservative

Pro

Since my opponent failed to post a rebuttal, I will simply add on to my argument.

Some fun EnviroNazi quotes:

-"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000" - Quoted in 1969
-"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish" - Quoted in 1970
-"Giving society cheap, abundant energy... would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun" - Quoted in 1978

All three quotes were by Paul Ehrlich, environmentalist/current president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University.

Nice that we have such influental people making such outlandish assumptions, isn't it? Sounds almost as outlandish as the massive hysteria due to natural warming with a hint of human contribution, doesn't it? Indeed.

"Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefeits" - Christine Stewart, Canada's former environment minister.

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental" - Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First. (I'm still wondering why alarmists don't volunteer to help with that movement).

Kyoto is "the first component of an authentic global governance" - Former French President Jacques Chirac.

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels" - Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund.

"Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned" - George Monbiot, environmental author. (I'll bet this guy has never been on a plane, right?)

-"Free enterprise really means the rich get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process... Capitalism is destroying the Earth.
-"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby." - Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists.

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund.

Talk about the rich getting richer, eh? That damn capitalism! Let's live high on the hog and kep everyone else down, where they belong!! - That's basically what I derived from those last two quotes combined.

*****"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest" - Stephen Schneider, lead 2007 UN IPCC report author.

He also wrote one of the reports that led to the Global Cooling in the 1970s.*****

Alarmist opinion towards dissenting views:

Heidi Cullen, climatologist at TWC, suggested disagreement should mean a loss of meteorological certification: "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

Ellen Goodman, from The Boston Globe, wrote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

David Roberts, of climate website 'Grist', wrote: "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards-some sort of climate Nuremberg."

The Nazi references are quite popular with that crowd, Glenn Beck was called "CNN's cheif corporate fascism advocate" by RFK Jr. When the Washington Post asked him why he thought Glenn was a Fascist he said that Glenn was "voicing doubts about global warming a few weeks back."

How dare he!!! Seriously folks, when it's gotten to the point that a politician from a long line of family politicians calls someone a Fascist for voicing his opinion... hasn't it maybe gone too far?

Did you know that if every home in America replaced one standard light bulb with a fluorescent bulb (assuming EVERY home actually did this) the polution saved in one year would be equal to taking 800,000 cars off the road? Sounds staggering, doesn't it? And by all means, that's a noble start, but what they're not telling you is that those 800,000 cars being taken off of the road only equal about .1% of registered vehicles worldwide. Not to mention that transportation contributes only to 1/5th of the manmade pollution.

The amount of co2 China's new coal plants (one per week) will send into the atmosphere matches that of 3 billion Ford Expeditions each being driven 15,000 miles/year. Not to mention it would take Ford roughly 15,000 years to sell that many SUVs. So to look at it another way, the co2 contribution of ONE country simply generating electricity in the next 12 years matches that of 3 billion SUVs being driven 15,000 miles a year.

brilliant climatologists decided the solution to global cooling (another scam that resulted in nothing) was to put soot on the ice caps to attract more sunlight and heat to help melt them. Good thing the 'skeptics' like me were right again. It's probably good that we didn't do that considering this natural cycle the planet goes through called a 'warming period' is scaring the crap out of you all with threats of floods and such.

The solution to the warming trend quoted: "layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet... balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere". - Washington Post November 16, 2006 quoting Nobel Prize winning climatologist Paul J. Crutzen.

I really hope he was kidding. Didn't we learn from the '70s that these people don't have very good ideas and the planet turned out just fine? Thank God for the skeptcs, eh? We pretty much save the planet.

I have this debate all figured out, and I have for quite some time.

Policymakers and scientists on both sides should throw out their debate and simply cut spending in some areas (like researching the climate, because it's really just a guessing game with millions of variables to take into consideration) and move that money over to figuring out how to shut up all the hippies that don't want nuclear power. Spend the money on making solar panels cheaper. Spend the money on buying land and reducing costs on creating wind famrs. Spend the money on making hydrogen cheaper. Spend it on making corn or soy into fuel in a more useful way than ethanol. Make more things diesel/biodiesel and make it cheaper than gasoline.

It's that simple, cut government spending in some areas and move that money to cleaner fuel innovation without taxing and regulating people to death.

1500 years ago, experts said the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, experts said the Earth was flat. And 9 years ago, Bill Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty." - Galileo Galilei

http://epw.senate.gov...

http://meteo.lcd.lu...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com...

http://epw.senate.gov...

http://ff.org...

http://www.junkscience.com...

http://www.junkscience.com...
left_wing_mormon

Con

Sorry I did not respond the first time. I am in the process of moving, and my internet is down. I'm using my girlfriends computer. So I would like to point out some interesting comments you made in the first post, and then briefly address the second one.

You say anyone who believes in the science of climate change, known as Global Warming who drives a car, uses a computer, heats their home, ect., they are hipocrites. Well, unfortantly "living green" as it's called, is very expensive. I cannot afford a solar powered home, or a hybrid,ect. So if I have no other options when it comes to living how does this make me a hipocrite? Not a very fair argument...

Now I have noticed the main thrust of your argument is targeting the talking heads of Global Warming. In my opinion it doesn't matter if Al Gore himself even believes sincerly in the science, or that he is just in it for the money as you put it. That doesn't change what enviromental scienctists have said. If global warming is true, according to the scientists, it doesn't matter how much money Al Gore was getting payed. Money doesn't change the science.

You see we have basically 2 options, and 2 factors. First scenario, we'll say gloal warming does not exist and we spend the money and pass the laws and change our behavior drastically. Since it does not exist everyone will be upset right because we spent money for nothing. Second scenario, lets say global warming doesn't exist and we don't do anything. Ok, everyone is happy. But now Global Warming exists and we do something abut it. Everyone remains neutral. Some mad that we payed for it all and others happy we still have a planet. The last scenario, Global warming is a threat and we do nothing. Nobody will be happy nor sad. Everyone will be dead.

So you say that Global Warming is only trying to make certain people richer. Why are non-profit organizations begging congress to take action? What money will they make?

Sorry I'm in a rush to post this. I have to leave. Sorry I wasn't as prepared to comment.
Debate Round No. 2
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shwayze 6 years ago
shwayze
BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."

"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK)

The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
It's true. The IPCC don't often get it right.
They typically under-estimate. As they should.

Note that Vincent Gray is a coal/petroleum chemist - not a climatologist.
His love of his subject could be clouding his vision.
Posted by shwayze 6 years ago
shwayze
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

http://epw.senate.gov......=

chew on that one too.
Posted by Kierkegaard 6 years ago
Kierkegaard
Aha. You're only proving my point, since I said "OR you could be citing an unbelievably bias source." Need I remind you that NewsMax is an exclusively conservative site?

In fact, the founder himself (as well as the actual site) claims it to be "the leading independent online news site with a conservative perspective." (http://w3.newsmax.com...)

CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE. Which means it is BIAS.

Give me something non-bias on a non-bias site and I'll perk my ears up. Otherwise you're simply going to amuse me.

I believe I just chewed on it and spit it back in your face.
Posted by shwayze 6 years ago
shwayze
http://www.arboristsite.com...

chew on that.
Posted by Kierkegaard 6 years ago
Kierkegaard
I would love to. Hence the whole part where I made fun of you not citing your source.
Posted by shwayze 6 years ago
shwayze
that quote was from Newsmax.com a few weeks ago. I have the article if you want to read it.
Posted by ReaganConservative 6 years ago
ReaganConservative
There is no globally-consistent pattern in long-term precipitation trends, snow-covered area, or snow depth. Arctic sea ice thickness showed an abrupt loss prior to the 1990s, and the loss stopped shortly thereafter. There is insufficient data to conclude that there are any trends in Antarctic sea ice thickness.
Current data suggest a global mean sea level rise of between two and three millimeters per year. Models project an increase of roughly 20 centimeters over the next 100 years, if accompanied by a warming of 2.0 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.
Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.
Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible, and therefore relies on computer model simulations. These attribution studies do not take into account the basic uncertainty about climate models, or all potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.
Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today's climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.
Posted by ReaganConservative 6 years ago
ReaganConservative
In a 30 year period from 1940-1970 as the CO2 levels increased due to industrialization the global climate actually cooled.

Manmade CO2 emissions are roughly 5% of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals. Annually, volcanoes alone produce more CO2 than all of mankind's activities.

The sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes the "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."

"Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science"
The Fraser Institute
http://www.fraserinstitute.org...
According to The Fraser Institute's independent summary of the IPCC report:
• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit some evidence of lower atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging near the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth's atmosphere), which accounts for half the world's atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there.
• Temperature data collected at the surface exhibits an upward trend from 1900 to 1940, and again from 1979 to the present. Trends in the Southern Hemisphere are small compared to those in the Northern Hemisphere.
• There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway. Perceptions of increased extreme weather events are potentially due to increased reporting. There is too little data to reliably confirm these perceptions.
Posted by Kierkegaard 6 years ago
Kierkegaard
Way to cite your source, there, shwayze. For all I know, you could be making random crap up. OR you could be citing an unbelievably bias source. OR you could be citing something *not* from the past year.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Funkymonkey 3 years ago
Funkymonkey
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 christiandebater 5 years ago
christiandebater
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 Phoebe 5 years ago
Phoebe
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 griffinisright 6 years ago
griffinisright
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 Bnesiba 6 years ago
Bnesiba
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 CP 6 years ago
CP
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 proaz 6 years ago
proaz
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 VenomousNinja 6 years ago
VenomousNinja
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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 shwayze 6 years ago
shwayze
ReaganConservativeleft_wing_mormonTied
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