The Instigator
ericjpomeroy
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
solo
Con (against)
Losing
41 Points

Gun control laws do not make America safer for law biding citizens!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,724 times Debate No: 2492
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (21)

 

ericjpomeroy

Pro

I first want to say that I hope you accept this debate, it should be interesting. My intentions for this debate are simple: I want to discredit all the myths that gun control makes law biding citizens safer. Gun control is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous for Americans. The 2nd Amendment was put in place not to protect the Nation, but to protect the people within the nation. I will go on in the later rounds to clarify, but I want to keep my opening statement brief.

Thank you, and good luck.
solo

Con

Thanks for challenging me directly with this debate. I agree, it should be interesting.

Since you've taken the Pro side of this negative topic, the burden of proof lies with you, and I am afforded the liberty of arguing a positive as the Con, which does not require me to provide proof:

Gun control laws make America safer for law abiding citizens.

<>

Good luck with that.

<>

The Constitution was written by men and can be re-written by men. The Constitution is whatever society decides it is to be, but that does not matter as it is not relevant to this topic of gun control laws not not making America safer for law abiding citizens. I am curious to read how such laws are dangerous for Americans though.

<>

Second Amendment: declares "a well regulated militia" as "necessary to the security of a free State", and as explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms."

The spirit of the Second Amendment is for a "militia" to be able to bear arms to protect the nation first and foremost, thus protecting the people within. You're distorting the spirit and meaning of this Amendment.

<>

I'll take this opportunity to "grab the ball and run with it". Thanks!

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady law (a gun control law), which requires background checks to prohibit gun sales to criminals and others, including those with a history of mental illness. Since the law went into effect in February 1994, background checks have stopped more than 600,000 gun sales to prohibited purchasers. Research has shown that these background checks have saved thousands of lives.

You've lost the debate, as this particular gun control law has already made America "safer" for law abiding citizens. Has it made them absolutely safe? No, but that is not what I'm debating here. I'm debating the topic, which is that gun control laws make America "safer" for law abiding citizens.

The above results with safety were with just one law and you cannot expect one single law to reduce crime singlehandedly. No. It takes many smart and well-designed gun control laws to do the job adequately.

Don't take my word for it, but take the results that other nations have enjoyed after implementing smart and effective gun control laws. After a loner armed with assault weapons turned a scenic resort into a mass of mangled bodies and thrashing injured in 1996, Australia took quick and decisive action. Twelve days later, the government pushed through a tough ban on semiautomatic rifles. Australia, which had seen thirteen mass shootings in the fifteen years that preceded the slaughter in Port Arthur, Tasmania, hasn't seen one since. It's been twelve years of safety from such a tragedy!!!

The Pro will undoubtedly try to make his argument seem "American" and good and right, then manipulate you into thinking that disagreeing with his points will make you un-American and fascist, but I urge you to look at the facts; they don't lie.

It should not be easy for a person to acquire any firearms if they are not fit to do so! People with a history of violent behavior, people with a history of mental "issues", and people relocated in the USA from hostile/questionable nations should not be allowed to bear arms without strict laws to ensure that the law abiding citizens of this nation are not in any foreseeable danger by such a potentially dangerous transaction.
Debate Round No. 1
ericjpomeroy

Pro

Your statements, though well thought out and very well put, have a lot of holes. A Militia is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.”. The last time I checked, the people in America are ordinary citizens. How is what I said distorting the spirit of the 2nd Amendment? Just curious.

Secondly you discuss the Brady Bill. How again does the Brady Bill make people safer? 600,000 gun purchases have been blocked since 1993. So what? The fact of the matter is people get denied by the Brady Bill for stupid reasons. The “Mental Issues” you talk about can be as simple as being prescribed Prozac once in your past. Why can’t felon’s get fire arms legally? Think about it. They go to prison for their crime, they pay their debt to society, and we still treat them like criminals? Our prison system is set up so you do your time, get out on probation, complete your probation, then you begin life anew as a regular citizen again. At the very least we would know they have the guns! I would rather a ex-con have a gun and I know about it rather than not knowing.

The violent criminals that get denied a gun, you think that will stop them from killing somebody, or even getting a gun? I have never seen a Crypt or a blood standing in line at Sports Man’s Warehouse. Drugs are illegal, yet it is easier for me to buy drugs than to renew my driver’s license. I am a citizen in good standing with the law and I can probably buy a gun cheaper and easier illegally than legally! I know you have heard the old saying: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” It rings true today. The Brady Bill stops people from owning guns that are being judged by the worst thing they have done in their life. What is the point of the justice system if we don’t rehabilitate anyone? Every felony should result in the death penalty if you think that way? If you believe in the American justice system then you are against the Brady Bill, bottom line.

Do you want to be like Germany in the 1930s? How about Russia under Stalin? Firearm bans are one of the steps to a totalitarian state under governmental (military) rule. Private ownership of firearms tends to keep government in check. Denying anyone a gun is criminal. Gun control laws protect governments, not people.

Boston put a 18-month minimum sentence for possessing an unlawful firearm in 2006, stabbings jumped up 10 percent. Shootings declined 12%, but the number of violent attacks didn’t drop. That didn’t work. Murderers and violent criminals will find a way.

Rather than restrict guns, we need harsher punishments for violent crimes. But the same people who don’t want you to own a gun, don’t want to kill killers. We shouldn’t have people on death row for over a decade, we shouldn’t have them on death row for over a month! How is the death penalty a deterrent? It isn’t anymore. Rather than keep guns from private citizens we should look to prevent the crime in the first place!
solo

Con

<>

The only holes that exist are in your argument. You've completely FAILED to answer many of my points, nor have you made good on your initial intentions. Remember your statement:

<> ???

<>

I put the relevant part in quotes for you not to miss. It read, "a well regulated militia". Perhaps you are not distorting it intentionally. Maybe you just do not understand the Second Amendment. I will explain it for you:

(Definition from your own American Heritage Dictionary, which you cannot dispute, as you used it as your source for information above.)

reg�u�late Pronunciation Key [reg-yuh-leyt]

–verb (used with object), -lat�ed, -lat�ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

The spirit of the Second Amendment clearly indicated that the militia have structure and regulation. Laws like the Brady law help to provide such requirements to allow everyday citizens to bear arms. What you are proposing is wreckless and dangerous to law abiding citizens. You are arguing that anyone can obtain a gun without any training, background checking, or "regulation" whatsoever. That is gravely irresponsible and cannot be condoned by civilized society.

<>

Since statistical analysis is beyond you, allow me to simplify it. If 600,000 gun purchases have been blocked, that means the potential for law abiding citizens of becoming victims of injury/death is greatly reduced for the simple fact that there were that many guns not at large posing a potential threat.

<>

Yes, and it can also be as simple as being determined to be temporarily insane once in your past too. People that are prone to psychological breaks do not need to purchase a gun with ease.

<>

Prove to me that by making it easy for (former) criminals to purchase firearms easily that they will buy guns legally. You're the Pro. Prove it, as the burden of proof is on you. For the record, I think you're absolutely wrong.

<>

No, but they are not the only ones that use guns to harm law abiding citizens, which is the point of this debate.

<>

Just because you have not seen this does not mean it does not happen. I am in Los Angeles where Bloods and Crips (not Crypts) buy guns legally all the time. I suspect that many of their guns are bought illegally, but there are many that are not and you are stereotyping a group of people of whom you know nothing about.

<>

Off topic. Also, drugs are not as cheap as a driver's license.

<>

That is doubtful. Anytime you engage in illegal activity, the merchandise is appropriately raised, which is what allows the seller to make a "fair" profit, due to the risks and consequences of getting caught that are involved.

<>

That's not true, as I do not see our police or military forces being disarmed. The people who protect the law abiding citizens have to be armed as a matter of common sense. These are also the people that are properly trained to carry firearms.

<>

How many people are truly rehabilitated in prison? How many return to prison after being released because s/he committed a (violent) crime? You are un-American if you are against Gun Control Laws. The well-being of the law abiding citizens should always come first. Why should law abiding citizens be at the mercy of a government who allows any violent idiot off the street acquire a means to do great damage and violence?

<>

Really? England's and Australia's gun violence statistics are no where near as overwhelming as the USA's. Americans deserve to be as safe as the people in safer nations that have Gun Control Laws. Are you going to flee from this point again or address it?

<>

You've omitted the actual figures. The way that I see it, a jump in stabbings by TEN percent is preferable with a DECLINE of shooting by TWELVE percent. It more mathematically sound when put into proper context. Thank you for that.

<>

That is not working now. We need Gun Control Laws. It is just that simple.

<>

That is a lie or an untrue generalization.

<>

I agree, but that has NOTHING to do with this debate.

<>

You are right about preventing crime in the first place, but sadly, you are wrong about the allowing of private citizens to obtain guns. You are suggesting that people with mental retardations of any kind should also be allowed to get upset one day and go buy a gun to shoot whomever made them upset. You are not discriminating against anyone in your argument. You just want to make it easier for anyone to be able to do EVIL.
Debate Round No. 2
ericjpomeroy

Pro

K, to make some comments about some myths.

1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In the last year for which data was available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False. There is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

3. The tragedy at Columbine High School illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have higher crime rates than those that don't.

False. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24% lower violent crime rate, a 19% lower murder rate and a 39% lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works. Seems to be your favorite point.

False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

Now I will make some comments on your comments.

<>

You Said: "That is a lie or an untrue generalization.". How is that a lie? Liberals are typically for gun control and against the death penalty. Deny it, then it is you who is lying.

<>

You Said: "That is not working now. We need Gun Control Laws. It is just that simple.". We aren't doing it, that is why it isn't working now! If we had a law that stated any violent crime commited with a weapon results in an automatic death penalty, then rather than having them sit on death row for a decade, you execute them publicly after their first and only appeal. Crimes involving weapons of any kind would be reduced dramatically.

<>

You said: "You've omitted the actual figures. The way that I see it, a jump in stabbings by TEN percent is preferable with a DECLINE of shooting by TWELVE percent. It more mathematically sound when put into proper context. Thank you for that." 350 stabbings went up 10% to 248 shootings went down 12%. Happy?

<>

You Said: "Really? England's and Australia's gun violence statistics are no where near as overwhelming as America's. Americans deserve to be as safe as the people in safer nations that have Gun Control Laws. Are you going to flee from this point again or address it?" I addressed this, it is myth #6. Also considering how we have massive amount of people in such small areas, like L.A. and NY, ofcourse violence will be high. We almost have more people than England in just California!

<>

You said: "Just because you have not seen this does not mean it does not happen. I am in Los Angeles where Bloods and Crips (not Crypts) buy guns legally all the time. I suspect that many of their guns are bought illegally, but there are many that are not and you are stereotyping a group of people of whom you know nothing about."
Well, I do know about them, I work at a youth treatment center specifically for youth involved with gangs, drug, and violence, and I have done so for over 4 years. So yeah, I do know about it. You shouldn't assume so much about me. But yes, probably over 90% of guns used in gangs are purchased illegally. Don't know many gun shops that sell guns to a 17 year old, and considering the average gang member is under the age of 21, they would have to purchase them illegally. Sorry I misspelled the gang, I have only heard it, never wrote it.

Ok, I have written a lot, even though I am passionate about this subject I am tired of writing. Every American has the right to own a gun. Making it harder for them to own them isn't helping them. Considering gang violence makes up more than 50% of violent crime in America, I think it is time we take a new approach and start killing killers. Law abiding citizens aren't shooting people and criminals don't buy guns from SportsMan's Warehouse. Gun control laws are just another right they are attempting to take from us by creating fear. Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. If anything we should have fast food control laws, considering heart disease is the #1 killer in America.
solo

Con

<
1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In the last year for which data was available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642.>>

642 dead children is still 642 too many!

<<2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

False.>>

So what?

<<3. The tragedy at Columbine High School illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

False.>>

Irrelevant. The issue at hand is whether gun control laws make people safer, and they do.

<<4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have higher crime rates than those that don't.

False. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24% lower violent crime rate, a 19% lower murder rate and a 39% lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.>>

I doubt the truthfulness of this point, but since there are no links to credible news agency to back this up, I'll call it what it is... a lie.

<<5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

False.>>

Another lie. Logically, if there are less guns in circulation, there are less crimes. It's simple logic.

<<6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works. Seems to be your favorite point.

False.>>

You have distorted facts to support your argument without any sources, yet again.

<>

So there is not a single, solitary Republican alive that is for gun control laws and against the death penalty? What part of "generalization" did you not understand? You think everyone thinks in the same terms that you do. You are wrong.

<>

You do not understand the criminal mind and I do not expect that of you. Again, you are wrong. People are people and they will do what they will do. Your claim of lower crime rates is laughable and everyone knows it.

<<350 stabbings went up 10% to 248 shootings went down 12%. Happy?>>

LOL! You made that up and you know it. (Again, no link to a credible news source. Just another magical figure that came from...)

<>

Of course! Especially if people have easy access to guns, huh?

<>

Right, because you are an expert. Do you live in New York? No. Do you live in Miami? No. Do you live in Chicago? No. Do you live in Los Angeles? No. Do you live in a huge metropolitan area? NO. Your personal experience is irrelevant, as you do not have a clue as to what real gang activity truly is, but deal with small-time wannabes.

<>

"Probably over 90%", eh? In your "expert opinion", of course. (Again, no links.)

<>

Again, logic is escaping you. Guns can be purchased quite legally by some irresponsible person and then end up in the hands of gang members in a number of ways. With laws that are more strict, we eliminate many dangers to our law abiding citizens.

<>

Which tells me that you do not interact with "the real deal" and allowed me to negate your argument above.

<>

Are you serious? Vigilanteism is your solution? America would just become a huge bloody toilet, if we eliminate gun control laws.

<>

...said the "Crypt" expert.

<>

Heart disease is not a violent crime, but being filled with bullets by a nutjob who picked up a gun earlier in the day is quite violent and unsafe for law abiding citizens.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
There's no doubt it's easier to make up a law than to enforce it.
Are you sure though, that it isn't being enforced?

I don't know much of Massachusetts; but its name doesn't conjure up images of street gun-battles.
Posted by claytone 8 years ago
claytone
I live in Massachusetts and we have had a mandatory 1 year sentence on the books for 20 plus years for anyone caught with an illegal firearm but only 1 person has ever been convicted under this law .. We have enough , no, more than enough gun laws on the books already , what we need is judges that enforce the laws on the criminals that are caught not breaking not just gun laws but laws in general. We bark a lot but have no teeth.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to be used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense."

From: Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.
Posted by ericjpomeroy 9 years ago
ericjpomeroy
http://youtube.com... Check this out liberal.
Posted by ericjpomeroy 9 years ago
ericjpomeroy
I forgot to point out that violent crime hasn't dropped since the Brady Bill.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
"But the same people who don't want you to own a gun, don't want to kill killers."

Actually, Solo, that is a true generalization.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
HA! Not even posted for six seconds and someone voted. LOL! I love it.
Posted by ericjpomeroy 9 years ago
ericjpomeroy
Sorry about the numbers, I don't know why it turned my semi-colon and apostrophes into numbers.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Meh... I'm bored. I'll debate it, as I have nothing better to do right now.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I considered accepting this debate, but there are a number of existing problems. One of the problems is in your profile.

"I am a hardcore conservative. I get physically ill when talking to liberals. They make me sick. I get really fire up when debating politics and illegal immigration."

There should be a "d" at the end of "fire", so that it reads: "I get really fired up when..." Fix it and I'll accept your challenge.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by magpie 6 years ago
magpie
ericjpomeroysoloTied
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 bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
ericjpomeroysoloTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
ericjpomeroysoloTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
ericjpomeroysoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
ericjpomeroysoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
ericjpomeroysoloTied
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 solo 8 years ago
solo
ericjpomeroysoloTied
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 claytone 8 years ago
claytone
ericjpomeroysoloTied
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 silentrigger1285 9 years ago
silentrigger1285
ericjpomeroysoloTied
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 sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
ericjpomeroysoloTied
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