The Instigator
Labrat228
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Dnick94
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Gun Bans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Labrat228
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,498 times Debate No: 5850
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)

 

Labrat228

Con

In a world where gun crimes are up and the amount of money is down, the human race is consistently trying, and failing to reduce gun crimes. One of these failed methods is the all to famous "Gun Ban".

A) My first argument against gun bans is simply a quote by MICHAEL S. BROWN.
"Honest legislators must ask: Which gun laws, if any, will truly reduce violence? Thanks to the Clinton administration and the Centers for Disease Control, we have a pretty good idea. A group of scientists reviewed the extensive literature on the effectiveness of gun laws and released its report in 2003. With so many gun laws enacted in the latter half of the 20th century, there were numerous examples to study, but they were unable to find convincing evidence that any gun laws have ever been effective." -- Thursday, February 1, 2007

B)
Situation 1 (With Gun): You are home alone, handgun by your bedside, 1:58AM, sleeping. SUDDENLY, you wake up to the front door being kicked in. You quickly use your human instinct and seek to defend yourself. You grab the handgun, the vicious criminal comes into your bedroom, he sees you have a gun pointed on him, he runs out of your home. It is now 2:07AM, the police arrive, they fingerprint a piece of expensive jewelry that the criminal must have dropped when he noticed you had a gun. They catch the criminal. PoeJoe is found guilty and put in jail.

Situation 2 (Without Gun): You are home alone, 1:58AM, sleeping. SUDDENLY, you wake up to the front door being kicked in. The vicious criminal comes into your bedroom, he sees you hiding in the corner begging for mercy, he shoots you to make sure his identity was still hidden. It is now 2:07AM, the police arrive, they find the remains of 1 adult and no clue as to who did it. The criminal is later cought and brought to justice after doing the same in 3 other homes.

Situation 2 is the result of a gun ban. You must realize that the criminal is a criminal because he doesn't obey the law. Why would he obey a gun ban?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- George Washington
Dnick94

Pro

Thank you for the opportunity to debate such a controversial issue. In the world where gun crimes soars and inflation occurs, humans are consistently trying to reduce gun crimes. We know that keeping restrictions off gun ownership didn't reduce gun violence. The problem is how we reduce gun violence.

Definitions:
Gun ban - bans on gun ownership

A. Gun laws have never been effective on reducing gun violence.

Justice Breyer wrote that at the crudest level, violent crime in Washington has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. He states that "a comparison with 49 other major cities reveals that the district's homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction went into place."

But these statistics cannot be used solely to prove this claim. Aside from the gun ban, like demographics, economics and the drug trade were almost certainly in play. After it does not always mean because of it. My opponent's conclusion is not an indictment of all efforts to regulate guns. There are many flavors of gun control, and many problems of definition and measurement.

Every country is different by its cultures and laws. Different cultures have different law-abiding people. One study showed that strict gun laws are correlated with more murders, not fewer. However, "many criminologists say cultural, economic and demographic factors play a big role in murder rates, and some say the number of guns and the number of murders may well be uncorrelated."

The controversy about the "mixed quality of the evidence on the efficacy of gun control, along with its varying interpretations, means that lawmakers should be allowed to assess it for themselves to set reasonable gun control policies." Justice Antonin Scalia said the Constitution had largely shut down the discussion. However, he acknowledged that "gun violence is a serious problem." Therefore, lawmakers should be allowed to evaluate the "failed gun ban" in order to make gun control policies to reduce gun violence. Gun laws haven't been effective before, but if allowed, lawmakers may find a way to reduce gun violence.
For more information, go to http://www.nytimes.com......

B. Situation 1 and 2
According to my opponent's situations, we must assume the following:
PoeJoe is a criminal.
He is strong enough to kick the door in
He has sneaked out of the house without his parents discovering where he went.
He bought or stole a gun.
He doesn't care about stealing or killing.
He has a car or the house is nearby.
He's crazy.

Situation 1 (With Gun) results:
You grab the handgun; the criminal sees you have a gun pointed on him, and the criminal shoots you first.
You grab the handgun; the criminal sees you have a gun pointed on him, and you shoot the criminal and then suffer the death penalty.
The criminal runs out of your home and the criminal doesn't drop anything.

Situation 2 (Without Gun) results:
You hide in the corner begging for mercy and then you beat the criminal up, because both of you have no guns.
You hide in the corner begging for mercy and then the criminal beats you up, because both of you have no guns.
He shoots you to make sure his identity was still hidden and DNA analysis was used to track down the bullet to its owner, then the criminal is brought to justice.
He has a gun and sees you hiding in the corner begging for mercy and because he thought that the gun ban made you defenseless, you shot hit with a taser gun disguised as a flashlight or cell phone.

A criminal may not follow the laws. But that doesn't mean that he is intelligent enough to get a gun if gun were banned, does it? If guns were outlawed, outlaws only have guns? If outlaws can't have guns, the better the gun ban would work. U.S. small arms are briskly — and illegally — sold all over the world. Illegal guns are the problems of the gun ban, because outlaws may use the gun ban as an advantage to use against law-abiding citizens. So what is the solution? Global Gun Ban, not just any country gun ban concerning just the United States. Local gun bans are a problem, because outlaws will have access to guns. However, the U.N. is after Americans' Second Amendment gun rights and it wants gun ownership banned in the U.S.
For more information, go to http://archive.newsmax.com......

This is our right to bear arms in practice. And it's not saving lives or guarding liberties. It's relatively easy for crazy
criminals to get their hands on everything from assault rifles to handguns, as well as all the ammunition they need.

In the last 10 years, the international community succeeded in establishing a global treaty against antipersonnel landmines and a global ban on cluster bombs — that pose a threat to military personnel and civilians alike.

With no access to guns, gun violence may be extinct. So the question is: Shouldn't a global treaty against guns be next?
For more information, go to http://www.fpif.org......

Guns may be used for self-defense, but they can only be used to kill. Tasers are better self-defense weapons that you can use against criminals without killing anyone. I will further elaborate in the next rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
Labrat228

Con

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefforson... In R1 I said the quote was of George Washington, felt that it need be corrected.

A) My opponent fails to refute Justice Breyer, he says that "Aside from the gun ban, like demographics, economics and the drug trade were almost certainly in play". You realize these issues still remain "in play" today right? And if you are correct, then you are adding to my argument. In your argument you openly suggest that the economy and drug traffic have a role in gun violence, you then suggest that when these things happen in a gun ban, gun crime goes up. You then say "if allowed, lawmakers may find a way to reduce gun violence.".... I point you to the beginning, it didn't work! We must not linger on failed ideas that are proven to make things worse! It is almost as if you are saying, lets try this and see if it works. My friend, we are talking about lives! It has been proven time and time again that gun bans are linked to higher murder rates. Lives are something you cannot experiment with until you get it right!

B)
According to my opponent's situations, we must assume the following:
PoeJoe is a criminal. - Correct
He is strong enough to kick the door in - Correct
He has sneaked out of the house without his parents discovering where he went. - Speculation, no evidence.
He bought or stole a gun. - Speculation, no evidence.
He doesn't care about stealing or killing. - Correct
He has a car or the house is nearby. - Speculation, no evidence.
He's crazy. - Incorrect, refuted. "gun pointed on him, he runs out of your home." Obviously has a clear state of mind.

Situation 1 (With Gun):
You grab the handgun; the criminal sees you have a gun pointed on him, and the criminal shoots you first.
Very unlikely, PoeJoe has a goal, to rob the home. It has been proven that when fear is against an agenda, fear takes over. The most common form of fear, is surrender.

You grab the handgun; the criminal sees you have a gun pointed on him, and you shoot the criminal and then suffer the death penalty.
Our justice system is now set up to a very secure point in which self defense is a right. We now have the technology it takes to recreate crime scenes making self defense obvious.

The criminal runs out of your home and the criminal doesn't drop anything.
In other words, the gun saved your life. (Thanks for that one Dnick, I was relying on that slip up)

Situation 2 (Without Gun):
You hide in the corner begging for mercy and then you beat the criminal up, because both of you have no guns.
The criminal has a gun because he failed to obey a ban which cannot be enforced.

You hide in the corner begging for mercy and then the criminal beats you up, because both of you have no guns.
Again, The criminal has a gun because he failed to obey a ban which cannot be enforced.

He shoots you to make sure his identity was still hidden and DNA analysis was used to track down the bullet to its owner, then the criminal is brought to justice.
And according to my opponent "The criminal runs out of your home" because you had a gun. (His sit2 example)

He has a gun and sees you hiding in the corner begging for mercy and because he thought that the gun ban made you defenseless, you shot hit with a taser gun disguised as a flashlight or cell phone.
I have honestly been hit with a "Jail Tazer" before, they cause cramping for 5 seconds making it dangerous for you due to the fact that he has his gun pointed at you. What about his finger cramping and pulling the trigger?

"But that doesn't mean that he is intelligent enough to get a gun if gun were banned". Drugs are banned, these people who use drugs are usually non-educated. Yet they still get their hands on drugs. I live in Western VA, I know how to make a fully functional rifle out of parts in my garage. My father knows how to make a pistol out of engine parts that can be found in a local junkyard. In Craig County we once had a "Gun Building" contest to see who was the best at it in our area. If a bunch of rednecks can produce guns, what makes you think that we are the only ones who can?
Lets see how much you like the following numbers...
1.4 million handguns - 1997 USA Production (CFAF)
2.2 million shotguns - 1997 USA Production (CFAF)
In 1996 a Police study found that 44 million Americans owned 192 million guns, 65 million of these were handguns.
My opponent is suggesting that the above numbers can simply vanish into thin air just because a man in office signed a paper saying that they must vanish. As far as I'm aware, these papers have no supernatural power of any type.. How could you enforce a law that must find 192 million (as of 96') guns in order to work properly?
Dnick94

Pro

Counterarguments:

A) Gun bans results in more crime.

Elementary logic says that after it does not always mean because of it. There are more factors than gun ban that could increase the homicidal rate including demographics, economics and the drug trade. There are many types of gun control with their problems and flaws.

"The proposition that strict gun laws cause crime is harder to accept than the proposition that strict gun laws in part grow out of the fact that a nation already has a higher crime rate."

Lawmakers are trying to solve the problem with gun bans so that they can reduce gun violence and deaths. Therefore, they should be allowed to evaluate the problem and assess it for themselves to set reasonable gun control policies.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com...

Keeping the gun control policies the way they are currently won't decrease gun violence or deaths. Some people want change to help solve the problem. Some such as Barack Obama has proposed change to the United States.
Did you know that "Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America?"
Source: http://www.gunbanobama.com...

You may argue that change isn't always a good thing and we are dealing with lives. Letting everyone have a gun won't decrease the crime rate, wouldn't you agree? In fact, "American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)" The cause of it was because America is the world's freest, most uncontrolled gun culture.
Source: http://www.neahin.org...

Unless you can propose another solution that is perfect and flawless that will help reduce gun violence and deaths, gun bans can only be used to stop them.

B) Situations

Situation 1 (With Gun):
You grab the handgun; the criminal sees you have a gun pointed on him, and the criminal shoots you first.
If PoeJoe is armed, he will most likely shoot to cover his identity according to situation 2 when you don't have a gun. If you don't want to kill him and hesitate, PoeJoe can shoot. You can only shoot him if your actions would be called justifiable homicide. "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker" such as escape, self-defense weapons, or burglar alarms.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The criminal runs out of your home and the criminal doesn't drop anything.
Possible results could occur:
Then he comes back later to kill you when you go back to sleep.
He robs your home when you are at school or work assuming that he can kick down the door.
He doesn't run out because he decides to shoot you and risk death.

Situation 2 (Without Gun):
You hide in the corner begging for mercy and then you beat the criminal up, because both of you have no guns.
PoeJoe needs to get the gun from somewhere else assuming he can't manufacture a gun by himself. Very unlikely if a global ban has been set up.

He shoots you to make sure his identity was still hidden and DNA analysis was used to track down the bullet to its owner, then the criminal is brought to justice. In my last round, I put possible results from those situations and they don't coexist at the same time. Consider a problem and you put multiple solutions that don't coexist. Then you would evaluate all of the solutions and those the best solution.

He has a gun and sees you hiding in the corner begging for mercy and because he thought that the gun ban made you defenseless, you shot hit with a taser gun disguised as a flashlight or cell phone.
"As a general rule, a one-half second contact will repel and startle the attacker, giving some pain and muscle contraction. One to two seconds will cause muscle spasms and a dazed mental state. Over three seconds will cause loss of balance and muscle control, mental confusion and disorientation." So basically, it takes three to five seconds to completely immobilize the attacker. And since PoeJoe thinks that you're defenseless because of the gun ban, a taser disguises as a flashlight or cell phone would make a huge nasty shock.
Source: http://www.selfdefenseweapons.com...

"But that doesn't mean that he is intelligent enough to get a gun if gun were banned".
The best solution - global gun ban. Just because your family knows how to make a gun, doesn't mean that every criminal knows too. Why don't criminals just make guns instead of buying them from gun stores so that they couldn't be identified?

This is how we can enforce it: global ban and "while the U.N. has no power to force the U.S. to ban gun ownership, it can, with the enthusiastic help of the foreign and domestic anti-self-defense media, create a powerful international movement to shame the U.S. into junking the Second Amendment rights of private gun ownership."

The U.N. proposed:
# Strategies to reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule;
# A ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and target shooters who would be forced to store their weapons at shooting ranges;
# Worldwide licensing of firearms registered in a vast U.N. computer bank.
Source: http://archive.newsmax.com...

I will elaborate in further rounds.
Debate Round No. 2
Labrat228

Con

Rebuttal:
My opponent's main idea throughout the debate has been simply this (when added together):
A) Replace guns with tazers throughout the world.
B) Let lawmakers add to the bans to make them work.
C) "In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)" The cause of it was because America is the world's freest, most uncontrolled gun culture."

I will summarize my view to make it simple for the voter.
A) My opponent expects millions if not billions of guns to simply vanish into thin air. While it is still possible that this "Gun Ban" can have a supernatural ability beyond our comprehension, its not likely.

B) According to logic, bans simply don't work. Lawmakers make laws, criminals break laws. Lawmakers can stumble around working on a ban all they want, but when it comes down to it, "Criminals break laws". Again, I'm not aware if this paper has supernatural powers, but I am very sure that is what it would take to change the mindset of a killer.

C) I'm actually glad you threw that in, it helps me. It has been proven that in areas of high population (USA) (China) (India), that you will see very high crime rates. My opponent thinks that the gun crime numbers are high because we are free, I see no proof of that. My opponent is relying on heavy speculation to defend gun bans.

Thank you for reading my points. And good debate DNick. Vote Labrat228!
Dnick94

Pro

My opponent argues based on the quotes of people as Thomas Jefferson that gun bans don't work.

Thomas Jefferson considers the prohibition of an effective means of self defense to be unethical and to violate Constitutional guarantees. However, Tasers and stun guns are non-lethal electronic self-defense weapons. Guns are more efficient on killing than self-defense weapons. If gun bans eliminate guns, then civilians won't be defenseless if they own any electroshock weapons. There may have been a few deaths, but "the newspapers never print the follow-up report that, under investigation, it was found it was not the Taser that killed them it was drugs, alcohol, etc." Every law officer has been temporarily paralyzed by a Taser before being issued a Taser. There were no permanent injuries or trips to the hospital, because Tasers and stun guns do not kill easily as opposed to a gun.
Source: http://www.articlesbase.com...

Guns may not vanish into thin air but they can be banned. I have already stated that the U.N. proposed a ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and every firearm would be registered in a vast U.N. computer bank. Although the process may take years or decades, the end result would be less gun violence. The gun stores may be closed and citizens would have to surrender their guns. If any civilians choose to keep a gun, because they're criminals, the law enforcement would have to take care of it. Civilians may choose self-defense weapons as an alternate to a gun. Since law-abiding citizens will have to obey the laws, only outlaws will have guns. Then the outlaws would be misinformed, because they think that if civilians don't have guns, they can't protect themselves. However, if the criminals get shocked by a taser or a stun gun, the police can investigate the guns and take them up. Like a zero tolerance for minors drunk driving, there could be a zero tolerance for anyone who breaks the gun control laws.

My opponents think that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" like almost every supporter of gun rights. That is why he thinks that gun bans fail, because the primary reason that we have violence and murder is that people can be criminals who don't obey the law. But guns certainly make it easier.

"The founding fathers assumed that power corrupts and a government always requires checks and balances to remain true to the people's interest. For that purpose, the people must have the ability to rise against an oppressive government should the need arise and thus the need for private ownership of guns." Therefore, America is the world's freest most uncontrolled gun culture.

"No other functional democracies in the world relies on private gun ownership as a safeguard against a corrupted government. Instead they rely on dividing the power among different branches of the government and on an educated and well-informed population." This is exactly why most countries have less murders and homicidal cases than the United States.

Criminals is armed only because he too is allowed to possess firearms under the same set of laws that normal civilians do. Not every criminal has smuggled illegal guns. The same availability of guns in the United States can be accessed by criminals who will use it to commit crimes, not self defense. When the gun ban has passed and with proper law enforcement, criminals will have access to less guns than before and ultimately the number of gun-related violent crimes will drop.

The people committing these murders are not members of organized criminal syndicates or terrorist. They can be adults who are emotionally unstable who have an all-too-easy access to legally-purchased guns. If the gun ban was applied, perhaps "mafia mobsters will continue to have access to black market guns even after gun control laws are passed, but at least these idiots will not." Therefore, if the gun ban passed, less people would have access with guns and the gun violence will drop. Then all we have to worry about is terrorist and gangs who are intelligent enough to access the black markets. Knives are not even near guaranteed to kill at least half the people or less than the potential amount of victims from a single gun.
Source: http://www.darkmirage.com...

The argument that gun control laws have never been effective on reducing the gun homicide rate is a myth. The fact is that the murder rate almost always falls after the enforcement of gun control laws.
These are examples of stricter gun control laws, their success depending on how fully were they enforced:
"# The Massachusetts 1974 Bartley-Fox Amendment, which prescribed a 1-year sentence for unlicensed public carrying of firearms, decreased gun assaults, gun robberies, and gun homicides during the 2-year period in which it was evaluated.

# Several State mandatory add-ons to felony sentences for use of a gun have reduced gun homicides, but whether they have discouraged gun use in robberies and assaults is not clear.

# The decrease of gun homicides in Washington D.C. following passage of the 1976 D.C. Firearms Control Act appears to have been maintained until the mid-1980's when, according to a recent study, the rise of crack markets was accompanied by a substantial increase in gun homicides.

# The 1968 Federal Gun Control Act, which prohibited Federally licensed gun dealers from selling guns to certain designated "dangerous" categories of people, failed to reduce firearm injuries or deaths, apparently because of lax enforcement.

# The Brady Law, which requires a background check on gun-buyers to screen out criminals, went into effect nationwide in 1994. It prevented 40,000 felons from buying guns in that year alone, and saw a 3.56 percent drop in handgun homicides, a 3.16 percent drop in aggravated assaults and robberies, and a 6.84 percent drop in the number of those crimes committed with a firearm.

# Both the general homicide and gun-homicide rate declined in Canada after 1978, which may have been due to the passage of C-51, a law which considerably tightened restrictions on guns. (See Appendix C below.)

# And of course there is Europe, which has far stricter gun control laws than the U.S., and a far lower murder rate as well."

Of course, these examples alone does not tell us if gun control was the cause of this reduction in gun homicides. "But it does present a significant challenge to those who would like to argue that gun control laws increase the murder rate, or cause murderers to choose alternate weapons."
Source: http://www.huppi.com...

Many times the Interpol serves as an authorized law enforcement body having jurisdiction investigating allegations of international weapons smuggling. The purpose of the Interpol is to focuses primarily on public safety, terrorism, organized crime, war crimes, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human trafficking, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption. Therefore, there is a way that we can stop illegal black market guns from ruining the gun ban's intended effect: to reduce the amount of gun-related crimes and possibly reduce the amount of the violence and crimes overall.
That is why I highly urge you to vote for PRO.

I thank the voters for reading this debate and I thank my opponent for this interesting and fun debate.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
Yet I won.
Posted by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
No, the point was that you should use original intent by showing quotes from Founding Fathers instead of presenting unrealistic situations. You debated your position poorly.
Posted by Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
The ability to fight against situational arguments is perhaps the mark of a good debater. Dnick failed to do so, making my strategy one of superiority. The fact that you told me to use quotes from the founding fathers simply informs me you failed to read even my first round.
Posted by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
Wow, I read this debate and wondered how Labrat won 27-4. I am a huge supporter of gun rights. I support no restrictions on gun rights. With that said, Dnick's arguments were more convincing than Labrat's. That hypothetical situation doesn't belong in a debate. It is simply not backed by statistics. First off, why wouldn't the criminal shoot you? Secondly, why would the criminal shoot you if you didn't have a gun? I seriously would like to see any statistic that backs up this situation. Where is the evidence that a majority of the time when a criminal robs a house and faces an unarmed person, the criminal shoots that person?
Use quotes from the Founding Fathers, not this garbage.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"He shoots you to make sure his identity was still hidden and DNA analysis was used to track down the bullet to its owner, then the criminal is brought to justice."

Does anyone else see why this doesn't make any sense? It's ballistic analysis, not DNA analysis. You guys need to watch more NCIS.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
If he only lost because he was bombed, then he'd have more than 4 points.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Dnick94 won nothing! He has the same delusion that infects most gun grabbers. First, the idea that dying from "gun violence" is somehow more onerous than dying from violence with a knife, a broken bottle, a pipe, a brick or just plain fists. The perspective of a fit young man being accosted by an intruder is myopic. What about the 65 year old widow who is raped by the intruder. With a gun she has a good chance of avoiding rape or even death. Without one - no chance. A gun is the great equalizer. If she is proficient with a gun she has a better than even chance of evading harm. If, on the other hand, it is known that she can't legally have a gun, she becomes a victim. Gun grabbers, like communists, repeat the same refrain: "It has never worked because it has never been done correctly." It can't work! Gun bans deprive the victims of self defense.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Here we go again... *sigh*
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
Dnick94
Josh and his New CWO.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
"But I won the debate but got vote bombed just the same."
Yes, you were obviously vote bombed...? How?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MrMarty 8 years ago
MrMarty
Labrat228Dnick94Tied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Labrat228Dnick94Tied
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 Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
Labrat228Dnick94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by RTellez06 8 years ago
RTellez06
Labrat228Dnick94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Labrat228Dnick94Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32