The Instigator
crackofdawn
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
LaSalle
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

Hunting should be forbidden

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
crackofdawn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,057 times Debate No: 6295
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

crackofdawn

Con

This debate is over whether or not modern hunting (hunting with rules and regulations) in the U.S. shold be forbidden.

First of all I would like to set out a few definitions:

Hunting- the act of a person, animal, or thing that hunts. (http://dictionary.reference.com......)

Poaching- the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission. (http://dictionary.reference.com......)

Bag Limit- A bag limit is a law imposed on hunters and fishermen restricting the number of animals within a specific species or group of species they may kill and keep. (http://www.ask.com......)

Game- wild animals, including birds and fishes, such as are hunted for food or taken for sport or profit.

In case this wasn't understood, I'm arguing that hunting should continue as it is presently, with the rules and regulations that are being used presently (and rules and regulations added depending on the situation). Con is arguing hunting should be expelled all together (in the U.S.).

The list of some "recent" animal extinction in North America include:

*Oregon Bison
*Banks Island Wolf
*Eastern Elk
*Cuban Red Macaw (On Cuba I know but very close to the North American continent)

Like I said these hardly cover all of them but I tried to get a diversity and choose some of the major ones. Lets start with the extinction of the Oregon Bison. The extinction was caused by overhunting and skinning. However, this happened before hunting rules and regulations had been put in to stop this type of hunting (http://www.uwsp.edu......). The Banks Island wolf the same (http://www.itsnature.org......). Eastern Elk? Same (http://web.utk.edu......). Cuban Red Macaw? Same (http://www.petermaas.nl......).

So what's the moral for the above facts? Is it that hunting is a horrible, cruel thing that should never be allowed. No! The only reason those animals became extinct was because of no government regulation on the bag limits and sometimes even government encouragement. Since around the 1950s when laws and regulations for hunting were put in place not a single animal has become extinct in North America from [modern] hunting (try and find one on google if you don't believe me).

> As already stated modern hunting does not cause extinctions. This means we'll still have animals for generation after generation.

>First and foremost, the #1 cause of animal extinction is loss of habitat. #2 is introducing new species and #3 is overhunting. This is for the whole world though so overhunting still is caused by "prehistoric" hunting. As in hunting without limits or regulations(http://books.google.com......).

So what do we gain from this information? It's that if you want to stop hunting totally, you also have to stop building houses. Now not building any more houses is illogical. Although, once again I would like make the point that "modern" hunting does not cause extinctions.

Common misbeliefs about hunting:

1) Hunting is a slaughterfest where the animal has no chance and the hunter kills at will.

2) Killing an animal is murder.

3) Hunters kill simply for the fun of killing.

Hunting is not a slaughter. This is a huge misconception for most people. Hunting is generally extremely challenging and difficult to get good at doing. Animals are not stupid, they are very skittish and wary. First a hunter needs to find a good spot. If he doesn't, day over and nothing is taken. If he does he then needs to have a good setup (i.e. decoys, eliminate smell, camoflauge, etc). If he has steps one and two he then needs to get whatever he's hunting into shooting range (calls, rattles, decoys, etc). Finally at the moment of truth if the hunter does all of the above steps correctly he will mostly get some game in range. When the animal gets in range he then takes his shot(s) (depending on what your hunting there are laws prohibiting certain amount of shells, or bullets your gun can shoot) at it. From my own hunting experience and from the experience of others it varies on what your shooting to the percentage of times you actually hit something. A bad shooter maybe gets a hit 25% of the time while a good shooter hits maybe 75% of the time. I hope you can see how difficult it is for a hunter to get some game and try and fill his bag limit. The wariness of animals makes it very hard to get close to them and the challenge of it is what hunters hunt for in general (details later).

Killing an animal is murder. This one is opinion based so I can't put out facts that make it wrong. You can't also put out facts to make it right. I can however, put forward facts that could change someone's point of view. Many animals are used as sacrifices. For every Christian out there if you've read the Bible you'll know that God use to want animal sacrifices for certain sins. So for Christians saying killing animals is murder makes God look like a murderer. What about all the non-christians of the world? What about animals that kill other animals? If you think it's cruel that animals are killed then you go take it up with the predators of the world. Animals will die, and animals kill each other much more than humans kill animals (common sense).

Although I can't speak for everyone I can say that in general (myself included) hunters hunt for the adrenaline of game getting close, the challenge of getting game, and the overall anticipation of the hunt (to clarify, they don't hunt FOR the kill, they hunt for the ANTICIPATION of the hunt and kill as well as the meat and skin). I have met perhaps around 250 hunters at least in my life and not one of them was some crazy, psycho lunatic on the loose who took out his angers on "helpless" little animals. Hunters hunt for the challenge and when they do get the game they eat the meat, use the skin, and other uses depending on the animal. Now every group has its minority and there are hunters out there that break rules. What they do is against [modern] hunting so such an argument is irrelevant to this debate. It's not like we go out to shoot animals then just leave them there dead. I personally believe that killing an animal for nothing more than fun is wrong. Some may disagree with me but that's just my point of view. In general (as once again I can't speak for all hunters) we do use the animals that we shoot.

I will make further points as necessary and look forward to refuting my opponent's argument.

I wish my opponent good luck on his rebuttal. I would just like to point out one last time though that to win he has to prove that "modern" hunting is wrong and that we should get rid of hunting totally.

P.S. This is potentially a vote-bombing target so I would just like to ask that the debaters don't vote and that voters base their votes off of who did better, not who they agree with more. Also I would like to ask that voters explain their votes in the comment's section.
LaSalle

Pro

I contend that hunting for sport should be illegal.

Humans are an an omnivorous species and as such we raise and keep "slaughter houses" where animals are kept and killed for the purpose of food consumption. While some morally object to this practice, most of us don't worry about where our food comes from - we just like to eat it. Eating is the primary reason for the acceptance of this murder. We accept that in addition to tastiness, animal consumption has been a natural process for our species since the dawn of humanity, and offers nutrients and other health benefits that protein substitutes and vitamins simply do not. However, hunters don't kill for the purpose of nourishing humanity or even for the traditional enjoyment of food consumption that has been culturally sustained throughout the globe for ages. Instead, hunters kill purely for their own enjoyment or "sport."

The problem with considering hunting a sport is that usually when one chooses to engage in sport, i.e. basketball, football or even swimming, his or her competitors or even the individual themself knows and chooses to participate in that activity. With hunting, the animal being killed has absolutely no inclination that they are participating in this so called "sport." Lisa from the great movie My Cousin Vinny describes, "Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water... BAM! A f****** bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces!" An animal has no way of knowing that they are being hunted for one's amusement. They are not choosing to participate in the sport. They are not challenging you or accepting the challenge of your hunting skills vs. their survival skills. Thus, it's murder.

An analogy to demonstrate this reasoning is boxing or Ultimate Fighting. If one were to randomly select someone to beat the living crap out of, it would be battery/assault. But when both opponents are choosing to consciensously participate in a battle of the senses, technique or skill, THEN and only then is it a SPORT.

Now, Con has mentioned that overhunting is only the third leading cause for animal extinction in the world. While that may be true, it doesn't mean that hunting or overhunting should still be permissible simply because there are 2 more prominent causes. For instance, if larceny is the 3rd most committed crime in the United States, should that make it morally permissible or any less worth prosecuting simply because theft and burglary come in at numbers 1 and 2? Clearly no, if the act (larceny) is inherently wrong. So far I have argued that hunting for sport is inherently wrong because it is done for the sole enjoyment of taking pride in one's ability to kill another innocent being without a warranted necessity.

Con has stated, "hunters hunt for the adrenaline of game getting close, the challenge of getting game, and the overall anticipation of the hunt." In other words they like the challenge of seeing if they can overcome animal instincts and defeat (kill) their "enemy." Two counters- One, this is a cheap experiment/win for humanity, as we are equipped with guns and other tools/devices that are man-made and do not come solely from nature. If we truly wanted to compete, we would use home-made spears and other minor devices instead of automatic rifles.

And two, given today's technological advances, it is more than feasible to assume that we could invent some sort of system that allows humans to test their skill and ability without having to actually kill a living and innocent being. Consider Duck Hunt the Nintendo video game (hopefully some of you are old enough to remember that)... If my 14 year old opponent cannot, think about other more realistic yet censored and safe forms of competition, i.e. paintball. It is a way to act out a "war" against conscious opponents, without causing any type of real death or destruction. I contend that we can develop a program or game or SOMETHING to give hunters the "adrenaline" they so desperately seek, without having to comprimise the lives of animals, the morality of killing in general, OR the reality that many animals have and continue to go extinct because of this heinous "sport."

This also effectively counters Con's point that hunting is not a slaughter, simply because "only GOOD" hunters actually achieve the kill. What kind of flawed logic is that?! That's like saying a singer is only a singer if they are good at singing. Clearly that is not the case.

Next Con points out that no animal has gone extinct in North America since 1950 due to hunting. Again I have two counters. One, why is North America being singled out? He fails to mention other continents that continuously have animals going extinct thanks to human interference and overhunting. Two, he is absolutely wrong with his assertion. "By 2010, there will be no more fish in the North Atlantic. Scientists claim this is because of major overfishing in the area, which will result in everyone eating only jellyfish sandwiches. The North Atlantic catches have fallen by half since 1950, and the devastating decrease of ocean organisms are still continuing at a faster rate than ever before. Fish prices have risen a sixth fold during that time because of such demand for more fish. The only way to curb the amount of fish in the North Atlantic is to decrease the amount of fishing drastically, or else all hopes will be gone."

Source- http://www.animalsgoingextinct.blogspot.com...

Fishing, according to Con's definition, does count as a form of hunting.

Another thing to consider is that legal hunting makes it possible for the wrong people to obtain licenses for weapons and firearms which can be dangerous to society. If hunting were illegal, the number of gun licenses would be drastically decreased, thus there would be less opportunity for the practice of illegal gun sales and trade. Also keep in mind that an instigated appreciation for violence for children of a young age can be dangerous to their mental health and the safety of others. Psychologists note that a violent tendency towards animals is an indication that one will harbor violent thoughts and carry out depraved actions as an adult. Now I'm not saying that all hunters are crazy psycho killers, however, the idea that a CHILD can be allowed to own a gun and use it to kill something (and possibly someone!) when they can't even legally buy a pack of cigarettes until they're 18 seems like incredibly backwards logic.

On a final note, I'd like to note note that even if a hunter DID kill for food (and not just hanging a pair of antlers or stuffed animal skin on their walls), it is still wrong as it is not a warranted necessity. Legal "slaughter houses" exist which are far more government regulated than any hunting law could be. It is strictly enforced that these habitats exist at a certain standard of production and performance. And while I'm not arguing that they are more morally permissible than hunting, it is common knowledge that the likelihood of their perpetuated existance is far greater than the notion that most people hunt (or even many people, as most people do not), so they will continue to exist. Establishing hunting laws is not difficult, but enforcing them is. Thus if there is a legal and relatively safe way to raise and utilize animals for food, clothing, or whatever your preferred use may be, then hunting is an immoral and frivolous activity which comprimises the life of innocent creatures for the sake of some people's amusement.
Debate Round No. 1
crackofdawn

Con

I thank my opponent for a well-thought response.

<< However, hunters don't kill for the purpose of nourishing humanity or even for the traditional enjoyment of food consumption that has been culturally sustained throughout the globe for ages. Instead, hunters kill purely for their own enjoyment or "sport.">>

Hunters kill for nourishing themselves as well. Farm raised animals don't have the same taste as wild game. We kill for the anticipation and challenge of the hunt. Hunters aren't happy that they JUST killed something. They're happy that they succeeded in the hunt and that they overcame the challenges of nature.

<>

Sport- an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Let's see, hunting requires skill, physical prowess, and a competitive nature. Oh look at that, hunting and fishing are even in the definition. :D

<>

Murder-the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Animal- An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

It seems to me that killing an animal is not considered murder by our definition's and law.

<>

This is worldwide where [modern] hunting (the hunting we're talking about) does not always take place. Meaning even with barbaric forms of hunting still out there, it doesn't cause as much extinctions as things like housebuilding. This debate is over [modern] hunting in the U.S. as I have already stated in Round 1.

<>

You obviously don't know your hunting facts. Hunting with automatic rifles (i.e. M15's, AK47's) is illegal. A hunter is allowed 5 shots in a magazine for big game and 3 for waterfowl. Those three shots are semi-automatic, not automatic. As in, the person has to eject each shell casing and then pull the trigger again. 5 shots is almost never used unless the animal is already down. Going back to the old saying "One shot, one deer. Two shots, maybe one deer. Three shots, no deer." Most of the time after that first shot goes off you aren't going to get another one off. Those things run FAST! I have never heard of a person shooting a deer on his 3rd shot. I've only seen someone hit one on his second shot on TV, and he was a professional. With ducks you won't get more than 2 good shots off most of the time. The only time you ever will is if they land. Hunting with spears and bow and arrow would almost be impossible. It took indians years of experience to hunt big game successfully. Even the most experienced could only shoot ducks sitting on the water, and to sneak up on them and get close enough, which is very hard to do. With big game they would have to set traps (illegal, as it should be) for the big game, or they would get in big hunting parties on horseback and round up large herds of animals on open plains and push them into an ambush. Not easy in a dense forest. You have obviously never hunted, so don't act like you know it's easy. People who are serious about hunting spend hundres to thousands of dollars to get the right equipment. They wake up as early as 1 o'clock in the morning and sometimes even camp out overnight. Very few things in this world are more challenging hunting. It's physically exerting, mentally tough, expensive, and... probably one of the best experience in the world for some.

<>

I remember that duck hunting game as a kid. I wanted it so badly but never got it :(. Once again, since you've never gone hunting, you wouldn't know that there is a game that can compare to hunting. Paintballing is fun but the anticipation is different and so is the sense of triumph. I can't explain it to you, you'd have to experience it to really understand. All I can say is that when I've gone paintballing it comes no where close to hunting.

<>

Once again, you obviously have never gone hunting. Only "good" hunters ever get any game because bad hunters scare away the game, never see the game, or always miss their shots at the game. You're analogy should be changed to:
Only good hunters get the game, although others can be hunters
while
Only good singers are listened too, eve though others can sing.

<>

"This debate is over whether or not modern hunting (hunting with rules and regulations) in the U.S. shold be forbidden." Because that's what the debate is over, according to my first sentence of this debate.

<<"By 2010, there will be no more fish in the North Atlantic. Scientists claim this is because of major overfishing in the area, which will result in everyone eating only jellyfish sandwiches.>>

I refute the reliability of the source used. It's a blog. We're debating hunting, not fishing. Fishing is a sub-category of "hunting". While "hunting" is the other part of the general term "hunting". We're debating hunting not fishing. However, this is exactly why we need to install rules and regulations on overfishing. That's what [modern] hunting is all about. Having rules and regulations put in place when needed due to certain events. We make rules to stop overfishing, we stop fish declination.

<>

If people are really wanting to get guns to do something bad, it doesn't matter if hunting is illegal. We're not debating gun rights. If hunting was illegal, people would still buy guns to commit crimes. They just wouldn't also use the guns for hunting, just crime.

Children aren't allowed to use guns without an adult around, or hunter safety.

Without hunters, wild populations would get out of control and ruin ecosystem.
(http://query.nytimes.com...)
No characters
LaSalle

Pro

Thanks, Pro, and good luck to you!

~~~~~

PRO: We kill for the anticipation and challenge of the hunt. . . They're happy that they succeeded in the hunt and that they overcame the challenges of nature.

RE: Killing for whatever reason is still killing! My opponent seems to think that the "challenge" makes this act admissible. But would it be moral to rob a bank for the challenge? Would it be moral for a married woman to try and pick up men outside of her relationship out of "anticipation of the hunt?" Would is be alright for me, probably a terrible hunter, to try and shoot a stray jack russel terrier because I know it would be a heck of a challenge? No. Hunters can find other things to be happy about than "overcoming the challenges of nature."

~~~~~

PRO: Uses dictionary.com to support the notion that hunting is a sport and not murder.

RE: I don't care what dictionary.com says. The dictionary is a book of words which are symbols that explain an idea; it is written by flawed humans and updated and changed constantly. I can argue anything in that dictionary and I've already explained why I don't think hunting is a sport (there is no willing and voluntary opponent for the hunter). Instead of disputing my rationale, Pro simply cited a dictionary definition which is bad debating. He did the same thing in arguing that killing is murder. Sure, semantically speaking animals may not be covered in the definition. However the concept of taking an innocent being's life is still there. Referencing definitions without arguing the concepts shows a lack of creativity and base for one's argument.

~~~~~

Pro: Didn't make sense in arguing my point that just because the destruction of animal habitat, for example, is the prominent cause of extinction, that over-hunting can and does eliminate certain species. It has in the past and even with modern guidelines there is still that possibility.

~~~~~

Pro: You obviously don't know your hunting facts. . . Those three shots are semi-automatic, not automatic. . . You have obviously never hunted, so don't act like you know it's easy.

RE: First of all, I never claimed to have either hunted (obviously if I am opposed to it!) nor have I ever suggested that it was easy. However I noticed that not included in his lesson about hunting, Pro did not refute the fact that humans are equipped with guns (whatever kind they might be) whereas animals are left defenseless in their natural habitat. In terms of skill and natural ability, i.e. strength and speed, clearly an animal would defeat a human without all of the necessary and expensive tools and weapons that Pro has described. While I appreciate the detailed description about how many shots it takes to kill a deer (not really, cause I'm a huge Bambi fan), the fact remains that just because hunting requires skill and is mentally exerting and exhilerating DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. Pro did a lot of explaining hunting and very little defending it.

~~~~~

Pro: Once again, since you've never gone hunting, you wouldn't know that there is a game that can (not) compare to hunting.

RE: Of course not. The same way that masturbation could never compare to actual sex. However just because sex might be the ultimate thrill does not mean that someone should do something immoral (i.e. cheat or rape) to attain it. Sometimes you have to settle for a lesser rush in the interest of acting morally. I'm aware that a video game or paint balling couldn't equate KILLING something but it seems a lot more reasonable, safe, practical and just.

~~~~~

Pro: Once again, you obviously have never gone hunting. . . Only good hunters get the game, although others can be hunters while Only good singers are listened too, eve though others can sing.

RE: What? Pro ONCE AGAIN points out that I have never been hunting. Big surprise! I never claimed to know the ins and outs of the "sport" but rather stand in moral opposition. Anyway, Pro didn't make any sense with this rebuttal- he agreed that only good hunters get the game. . . So what, only good hunters act immorally? Okay. How does that help his case???

~~~~~

Pro: We're debating hunting not fishing. . .

RE: Using my opponent's own weapon of dictionary references, hunting is defined as to pursue intensively so as to capture or kill (animals). Fish are animals. They are relevant. The absolute danger facing these animals is depicted not only in blogs but in way more legit websites such as:

http://overfishing.org...

And this Worldwatch Institute website details, "Nearly one in four mammal species is in serious decline, mainly due to human activities. Hunting provides the most immediate threat to large animals."

http://www.worldwatch.org...

~~~~~

Pro: If people are really wanting to get guns to do something bad, it doesn't matter if hunting is illegal

RE: True. But it would make it more difficult. Consider drugs- making them illegal doesn't stop their distribution or use by any means. But having legal drugs makes it a lot more feasible to get your hands on them.

~~~~~

Pro: Children aren't allowed to use guns without an adult around, or hunter safety.

RE: Right. And we all know that kids always obey their parents and don't do things like take guns to school and shoot up their classmates. Clearly children always abide by the rules.
~~~~~

Pro: Without hunters, wild populations would get out of control and ruin ecosystem.

RE: This is an assumption. Moreover, if a population problem threatened the safety and welfare of humans or other animals, we could find alternate means of controlling the problem. However, more importantly my opponent would have to prove that killing (hunting) would be moral in ANY sense. Think about all of the debates on here that have discussed "The intentional taking of one individual's life in order to save the life of several other innocent people." A main argument is that intentional killing is wrong no matter what 'good' comes out of it. If my opponent wishes to argue this final point, he would have to combat that ideology.

~~~~~

Back to Pro for now!
Debate Round No. 2
crackofdawn

Con

crackofdawn forfeited this round.
LaSalle

Pro

LaSalle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
More like 'I disagree with con so much, I can't bear to vote for them, even though they obviously did better'
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Actually, PRO won this debate. Hands down. Simply because I agree that CON only explained hunting and didn't defend it. The poster before me comes off as super ignorant, btw.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
I read the final argument and I started to bleed, out my ear. I really thought I was going to die. I can't even explain my thoughts on this...
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
This is one of those debates where the instegator has such an amazing opening it's almost impossible to read the cons argument, and then when you do, you discover that person does horribly. Then, like expected, they are completely destroyed in the next round. And you can't even read the last argument. You win COD. You completely win in every aspect of this debate.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"Back to Pro for now!"

Back to pro? But you are pro.
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
*but* is what I meant instead of *buy*
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
I apologize for forfeiting. I thought I had to tomorrow. Since I forfeited I have lost this debate, buy my argument does not rest! I will debate this again another time.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Pro's points are funny and will be hard to refute :)
Posted by nofairman 8 years ago
nofairman
"Hunting is a slaughterfest where the animal has no chance and the hunter kills at will."

No, us hunters do give the game a fair chance to run away, hence the saying "fair game"
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
crackofdawnLaSalleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
crackofdawnLaSalleTied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
crackofdawnLaSalleTied
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 Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
crackofdawnLaSalleTied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
crackofdawnLaSalleTied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
crackofdawnLaSalleTied
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