The Instigator
mega_dez
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
sadolite
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

Human activity is adversely affecting the environment & having a negative impact on humankind

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 8/18/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,410 times Debate No: 5073
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (12)

 

mega_dez

Pro

The evidence of human activity damaging our own habitat, the Earth, is based on sound, credible science. This includes, but not limited to, climate change.

The denials are based on economic interests of businesses, particularly, but not limited to, oil industry, with similar tactics and motives used by tobacco industry (whom denied the health problems associated with tobacco use). The denials of scientific findings are motivated by money; with the intent to alter public opinion and maintain their economic supremacy.

Increasingly, we cannot drink the water, breath the air, eat the food because of toxins and poisons. The ecosystem, which we are part of, is breaking down. The situation will get worse; if we do not make changes humankind will increase it's chances of self-destruction.
sadolite

Con

OK, Now I have your opinion on the planet being doomed. Now the tough part begins.

"Increasingly, we cannot drink the water, breath the air, eat the food because of toxins and poisons"

These problems are a result of local incompetence of local govts and the importation of food, goods and services from foreign companies that have no health enforcement standards. I have none of these problems where I live. If you have these problems maybe you should move and quit buying imported food and goods that come from third world countries with no health standards or enforcement.

"The denials are based on economic interests of businesses, particularly, but not limited to, oil industry, with similar tactics and motives used by tobacco industry (whom denied the health problems associated with tobacco use). The denials of scientific findings are motivated by money; with the intent to alter public opinion and maintain their economic supremacy."

This is text book political posturing to push an agenda, the environmentalist agenda. The environmentalist agenda needs money and wants to profit from it's agenda evey bit as much as any other special interest agenda. The sources that you will provide are bought and paid for by somebody who wants their interests promoted. My sources are bought and paid for by someone who I belive agrees with my point of view. You cannot dismiss my sources using political posturing just as I cannot dismiss yours. We will compare the content of all sources and see which is more likely than not using Occam's Razor.

This is an easy win for you. You could forfeit every round and still win. The people will vote on the title alone as this site is comprised 90% pro global warming theory. "THEORY" Yes that's right it is still a theory.

Here you can see I had a debate about this subject and my opponent forfeited every single round and I still lost.

http://www.debate.org...

Don't think for one second your debating skills or your sources have anything to do with winning the debate. With that said I eagerly await your sources and will with an open mind read them in their entirety and then cross reference and cross check the content of those sources to see if the data and the interpretation of that data is not misleading or just plain false.
Debate Round No. 1
mega_dez

Pro

I trust our debate will be judged without prejudice. Regardless of debating skills, reality is I am simply on the fact based side of this argument. The fact you are going against the tide of science and logic will give you ample opportunity to showcase you debating skills. I am in not familiar in the art of debating, so this should be like target practice for you.

The planet isn't doomed. I make no such claim. Earth has survived volcanoes, meteors, earthquakes, mass fires, it's ben hotter and it's been colder and, if we're not careful, we'll be just another mutation gone wrong.

Your opening argument shows a limited scope of your understanding of the world around you.

"I have none of these problems where I live."

You live in a bio-dome or in a magic castle in Disneyworld? Because you certainly don't fish in the Everglades. According to your Florida Department of Environmental Protection there are restrictions on fish consumption dues to mercury and other toxins. According to your own State Government, you have this problem where you live even if you can't see it. I geuss you can't really see the ozone layer thinning above you, perfectly understandable why you might not believe there's anything wrong. Perhaps your magic castle has it's own ozone layer?

"If you have these problems maybe you should move and quit buying imported food and goods that come from third world countries with no health standards or enforcement."

People of Nunavut, Canada can no long eat the food they've been eating for thousands of years because of the toxins, mercury and what not that accumilates at that latitude. If the do as they have, they are birth-defects and miscarriages from various toxins. Yet, they don't use mercury or DDT or any other toxic substances they find in their food; it comes from some place else via water, wind and the food chain. The Great Lakes, fish cannot be eaten nor do I recommend drinking the water. The fish you buy with the Highlander guy on it doesn't come from Florida and doesn't come without some amount of toxins. Simply believing that what goes on in other geographic areas doesn't effect you, especially with global trade, is naive, willful ignorance. Unless, of course, you the buy the fish from the moat around you magical pollution-free castle.

Dismissing this argument because of your supposed problem-free geographic location is utter nonsense. Mercury and pesticides like DDT move their way up the food chain. Food doesn't come from the supermarket; it comes from earth and water; and the air and currents that moves it all around knows no political boundaries.
sadolite

Con

When one speaks of the human race self destructing, I consider that the end of the world or doom if you will. The human race is the only species that can think in abstract to comprehend doom or self destruction in the context presented here.

"If we're not careful, we'll be just another mutation gone wrong."

This is not a matter of if, it is going to happen no matter how hard we as a people of the earth try to prevent it. The only way for the human race to live on indefinitely is to have the ability to leave this planet and colonize on another planet before this one and everything on it is destroyed by an asteroid or commet. This is 100% guaranteed to happen.

"Your opening argument shows a limited scope of your understanding of the world around you."

Liberals just can't resist insulting peoples intelligence when they disagree with them. Text book response from a typical liberal

"You live in a bio-dome or in a magic castle in Disney world"

No, I live in beautiful Sarasota Florida and I pay taxes through the nose to live in a clean beautiful environment. I can swim in the oceans and I can eat any of the fish I catch without any fear of being poisoned. We as a community have strict guidelines on toxic waste disposal that is enforced vigorously. That is why I don't have these problems where I live.

It is my assertion that all environmentalists believe there is a one size fits all policy with regard to pollution and any environmental condition. I think you are naive about people and economics and what makes the world go around.I think you think nothing about the economic impact that extreme environmental regulation would have on the economy. As a matter of fact I don't think you understand just how important the free flow of oil is to your very existence. It is also my assertion that you think anyone who would even question any data or any interpretation of any data that doesn't promote your view of the environment is against new forms of energy or any kind of environmental standards. You use text book Democrat politics to argue your position. You single out industries that you believe to be evil and then demonize them. Take oil companies for instance. They are demonized to no end by people of your political persuasion. They did not secretly concoct crude oil and put things in it to purposely pollute the air. Oil is perhaps the cleanest natural resource there is if put into context. Hundreds if not thousands of different things are made of oil not just gasoline. Alternative fuels are single purpose and pollute that's it, no other uses and require the use of oil to produce.

"People of Nunavut, Canada can no long eat the food they've been eating for thousands of years because of the toxins, mercury and what not that accumulates at that latitude"

THE ABOVE STAEMENT IS BLANTANTLY FALSE AND MISLEADING.

Here are excerpts from a case study of this town and it's people concerning contaminantes. It is filled with contradictions and uncertainties.

"Perceptions, understandings, and concerns regarding contaminants are complex. Even within a small community, consensus does not exist with regard to the
causes of contamination and its effects on animals, or indeed, on humans."

A high rate of heart defects was an important contributor to the nearly two times rate of total birth defects in the Inuit compared to the ACASS. Further study should be carried out to determine the contributing factors. Genetic predisposition to specific heart defects, and a diet low in folate and vitamin A are considerations. The use of alcohol may exacerbate vitamin status in pregnancy. Optimizing vitamin status in the periconceptional period may reduce the rate of birth defects.

"While these concerns were related to external sources
of contamination, many Arviarmiut, in particular elders, blame their own practices for damaging the environment
on which they depend. Garbage being dumped in the sea is
perhaps the biggest and most commonly cited explanation.
During the Oceans Project interviews, elders agreed that
animals are sick now because of the amount of garbage left
on the ice in winter, which then falls into the sea once the
ice melts. One man said, "We used to throw all kinds of
garbage into the bay in spring and a lot of the garbage sank
to the bottom. We were told not to throw garbage away
onto the ice. Older people warned us not to do that because
the animals will move away." Another elder pointed out
that once break-up occurs, this garbage sinks to the sea
floor, drifts out to sea or is washed back up on the coastline.
The elders all agreed that the coastline is littered now
with the detritus of the modern hunting lifestyle—oil
barrels, skidoos, sleds, and boats. One man suggested that
the sewage lagoon to the south of Arviat has led to declining
numbers of fish and sea mammals in the area. The fluid
household waste from the entire community is dumped
into the sewage lagoon, from whence it slowly leaches into
the sea. People no longer gather mussels or set nets in this
area, although they do still fish and hunt for seals at Nuvuq,
a point of land northeast of the lagoon."

Scientists are increasingly aware of the potential negative impacts of
their findings on local communities. Poirier and Brooke
(2000) have written of the social disruption that ensued in
Nunavik in the 1980s, when Inuit were told they should no
longer eat seal meat because it contained high concentrations
of contaminants. The psychological and economic
hardships that resulted were compounded by a switch to a
diet of store-bought foods that led to other health risks,
including heart disease, type-2 diabetes, and tooth decay
(Myers and Furgal, 2006).

Link to the complete report
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca...

The people of the town you mention do eat the food in their enviroment and to add this, the report admits that it does not include local polution as a source for contaminates. As you will read in this report there are virtualy no rules with regard to disposal of toxic waste and garbage, they just dump it all into the ocean right where they live. HMMMM I wounder if that would have an effect on contaminate levels in that area where the research was done.

Another blatant Lie. "The Great Lakes, fish cannot be eaten"

SPRINGFIELD, IL -- The Illinois Department of Public Health today issued new and revised fish consumption advisories for fish caught in Lake Michigan that include the lifting of a do not eat warning for fish taken from Waukegan Old North Harbor. The change in the consumption warning for Waukegan Old North Harbor fish, PCB levels in fish species have declined significantly due to harbor cleanup activities.

"Nor do I recommend drinking the water" I wouldn't drink water from any lake or body of water no matter how clean a bill of health it has, they all pose bacterial risks because it has not been treated for human consumption. I would think that would be common sence on anybodies part.

"The fish you buy with the Highlander guy on it" What the...?

"Unless, of course, you the buy the fish from the moat around you magical pollution-free castle."

I don't buy fish, I go out in my boat and catch it and bring it home and then eat every single mouth watering bite.

In conclusion to this round: I find most of what you say in your last round to be pretty much flat out lies and I have proven it. "The truth is always in the report or study, It is the truth that is never reported" (Brian Boyle 8/21/2008) I have traced back everyone of your claims back to its source, local incompetence by the governing bodies to control local polution.
Debate Round No. 2
mega_dez

Pro

mega_dez forfeited this round.
sadolite

Con

HOW MUCH MERCURY IS TOO MUCH? QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
How is mercury exposure measured?
Scientists determine a person's exposure to mercury by measuring the content in a strand of hair. By comparing these levels to the results of very sophisticated batteries of tests, scientists try to determine the lowest level that might be harmful.
At what level does mercury become harmful?
The World Health Organization's guidelines maintain that the lowest level that could possibly be harmful to humans is 5 parts per million (ppm). This level is based on scientific results from the 1960s that placed the level at which risk begins at 50 ppm for most people; WHO then applied a safety factor of 10, deciding that a level of 5 or less is safe for even the most vulnerable populations.
Now the University of Rochester team has conducted an extensive study in the Seychelles Islands of the most sensitive population -- young children -- where the average level is about 7 ppm, about 10 times the level of the U.S. population. The scientists found no harm from mercury at levels up to 15 ppm, nearly twice the average Seychelles level and about 20 times higher than the average U.S. level.

How do these numbers translate into people's lives?
Scientists typically calculate how much mercury a person could ingest each day before bumping up into the danger zone, and then regulatory agencies issue advisories based on those numbers. In the past, using the WHO guideline, EPA has recommended that a person ingest no more than 30 micrograms of mercury per day. Based on estimates of U.S. fish consumption, FDA recommended that only commercial fish with less than 1 ppm of mercury be sold. Nearly all fish caught in the oceans meet this criterion

Link to complete report: HOW MUCH MERCURY IS TOO MUCH? QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
How is mercury exposure measured?
Scientists determine a person's exposure to mercury by measuring the content in a strand of hair. By comparing these levels to the results of very sophisticated batteries of tests, scientists try to determine the lowest level that might be harmful.
At what level does mercury become harmful?
The World Health Organization's guidelines maintain that the lowest level that could possibly be harmful to humans is 5 parts per million (ppm). This level is based on scientific results from the 1960s that placed the level at which risk begins at 50 ppm for most people; WHO then applied a safety factor of 10, deciding that a level of 5 or less is safe for even the most vulnerable populations.
Now the University of Rochester team has conducted an extensive study in the Seychelles Islands of the most sensitive population -- young children -- where the average level is about 7 ppm, about 10 times the level of the U.S. population. The scientists found no harm from mercury at levels up to 15 ppm, nearly twice the average Seychelles level and about 20 times higher than the average U.S. level.

How do these numbers translate into people's lives?
Scientists typically calculate how much mercury a person could ingest each day before bumping up into the danger zone, and then regulatory agencies issue advisories based on those numbers. In the past, using the WHO guideline, EPA has recommended that a person ingest no more than 30 micrograms of mercury per day. Based on estimates of U.S. fish consumption, FDA recommended that only commercial fish with less than 1 ppm of mercury be sold. Nearly all fish caught in the oceans meet this criterion

Link to complete report: http://www.rochester.edu...

I have put mercury levels into context. If you are still making the claim that you can't eat fish without being poisoned by contaminants using this first site that you provided you are looking pretty foolish right now. Did you even read this or do you just look for the words don't eat the fish and use that as your hard core facts when it come to contaminants. All fish advisories are based on "total detectable mercury levels" that is to say it does not differentiate between different types of mercury compounds toxic or not. That's right, some mercury compounds are completely harmless to humans yet they are included anyway. Just so you know, my area isn't even on the advisory. As a matter of fact Florida is one of the lowest on the chart for fish advisories. This site also gives no data. It gives nothing in the way of levels.

Here is a site that gives data about mercury levels in fish.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov...

I will ask you to refer back to where I put levels into context. As you can see from the above link none of the fish even exceed es FDA guide lines for being toxic. Here is how to mislead people such as yourself. Some fish are prone to have less detectable mercury levels than others. Shrimp and shell fish being the least and big game fish being the most. The age and size of fish also come into play. Big game fish get a rating of "high levels" because they tend to have higher detectable levels than other fish. So you and the unsuspecting public think they are toxic because you see the words "high levels" When in reality the highest levels are well within the safe range by a long shot. None of the fish on this chart are above 5ppm and you can go as high as 50ppm if you limit your consumption of a fish with a reading this high.

Your next site about the beaches. Local Pollution problems.

Your last site about transmitting pollution world wide, I don't deny that there is pollution what in question is how bad is it. And unfortunately we will never get a truthful answer if people like you are in charge of interpreting data and giving out information to the public. You have an environmental extremist view point and will continue to stick your head in the sand when it comes to the true facts about pollution, how to solve it in problem areas and it's actual threat level.
Debate Round No. 3
mega_dez

Pro

Models show that both nature and human activity contribute to the warming of this century, however, when humans are taken out of the mix, the warming trend that would occur does not match the warming that is currently happening.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org...

"the main reason for warming is greenhouse gases. These are naturally occurring however in the past 200 years since the industrial revolution greenhouse gases have increased – especially CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, which come from the burning of fossil fuels, vehicles, agriculture & mining"
http://www.wnrmag.com...

As mentioned – nature and human activity work hand in hand in global warming. For example, water vapour is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is natures way of keeping the earth at a stable temperature, however other greenhouse gases are rising and do contribute to the greenhouse effect. As the planet increases in temperature, more water can be held therefore also increasing the temperature – so nature and human activity work together to raise temperatures one step at a time.
http://www.slate.com...

As an example of how CO2 and temperature seem to go hand and hand a website is provided
http://www.whrc.org...

I like how you mention that it is the political argument that climate change is real and science proves that it is false – then why is it that it seems that scientists agree that climate change is real and it is the corporations, lobbyists and politicians who is altering reports from their own "climate scientists".

http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://www.sciencemag.org...

"To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.

These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics."

-from the David Suzuki website. In case you didn't know, David Suzuki is the Rick Nash/Wayne Gretzky/Bruce Lee/Muhammed Ali of environmental science and causes.

It shows that companies such as Exxon Mobil are working with top public relations firms and using many of the same tactics and personnel as those employed by Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds to dispute the cigarette-cancer link in the 1990s. It shows said personnel admitting the science is bunk.

http://www.cbc.ca...

The trend of China and India and their increase in manufacturing and gas powered vehicles will exasperate the problems of air pollution. Despite progressive efforts, the global affect of a rapidly heating, changing environment, toxins affected the food chain, the oceans rising. The incomes and economics so many of rely on will change rapidly. The ecosystem we rely on is under threat and I provide the evidence to prove the conspiracy to deny the science.

Quite simply there is no peer reviewed science that states human activity does not cause global warming. My opponent show the signs of a Republican fanatic who allows his thinking to be ruled by the economics and politics that is threatened by the science.
sadolite

Con

So long folks, I refuse to enter my cell phone number to be a member of this site. Not only has it changed but now it sucks. Who's brilliant Idea was it to require people to give out their cell phone # I don't want text messages on my phone from debate .com What the #$%^&^%$#! Sorry mega dez I must forfeit you win.
Debate Round No. 4
mega_dez

Pro

I continued the debate without giving my cell number.

For those of you who have any doubts on human caused climate change or just skeptical, check out this page:

http://gristmill.grist.org...

Thanks for coming out, Sadolite.
sadolite

Con

sadolite forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
I hate piss ant cowards that throw personal insults on this site, They do it becase they know they can't be confronted face to face Which makes them the worst kind of coward of all.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"HOLY FRAK GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL" All right you started it, F##k you and everything about you I hope you nrot in hell.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
This is the gist of the conservative's stance on society: The market will handle everything. There is no need for regulation or social spending to keep people from turning to crime. Nobody ever has to go to jail, especially not businessmen. But black people and Mexicans are fair game, unless they're working for below minimum wage serving the white man.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
>This is an easy win for you. You could forfeit every round and still win. The people will vote on the title alone as this site is comprised 90% pro global warming theory. "THEORY" Yes that's right it is still a theory.

Evolution is a theory. So's gravity. And photosynthesis. And HOLY FRAK GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
The gist of con's argument: "If your food and water are polluted, it's all because you made bad consumer choices, not because other people suck." So if your house gets broken into, instead of calling the cops, you should just move?
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
sadolite, your cell phone number has been sold to governmental agencies that will now GPS track you. Your privacy is forever diminished.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Interesting, no votes at all !! I went into withdrawals not being able to comment and vote on debate.org. I caved and gave them my cell #. But I swear to gosh if they sell my # and I start getting inundated with text messages there will be hell to pay!!!!
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
The idea that all truth resides within those who subscribe to a political ideology is false.

Surely there are many a thing in which the traditional liberal is incorrect about, just as there are many things where a conservative's belief is wrong.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
I have to be, The odds are so stacked against conservatives on this site it's incredible. Not to mention I am in a debate about the environment which makes it even worse. I love this site, it is the challenge that keeps me coming back not to mention driving liberals crazy when their whole concept of what they were taught to believe comes crashing down in a sea of scientific facts that contradicts everything they want to believe is true. It is my prediction that none of this information will even affect your view of contaminants in the slightest bit because you are in so deep that the thought of admitting you are wrong is to embarrassing and to hard to swallow. You will continue to misinform and mislead people just as all environmental extremists do.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 8 years ago
TxsRngr
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
mega_dezsadoliteTied
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