The Instigator
Nails
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

I will not break a rule

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 11/27/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,900 times Debate No: 10253
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (7)

 

Nails

Pro

This is a copy of multiple other debates I've seen with similar rules.

0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.

1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule.

2. A forfeit results in a loss.

3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate.

4. With the exception of my first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null.

5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn.

6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round.

7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule.

8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The loser is the first person to break a rule.

9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions.

(End Foundation Rules)

11. All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules.

12. CON must refer to himself in every complete sentence that he posts.

13. None of my opponent's rules may be of exceeding difficulty for PRO. (e.g. 'PRO must write a sonnet about himself', 'PRO must write a 6,000 character essay without the letter 'e') NOTE: Obviously, what constitutes 'difficult' is up for debate.
Korashk

Con

14.) CON states that PRO must use the letters "r", "d", and "s" at least once in every sentence from here on.

15.) CON cannot be restricted in time to post responses other that the default 72 hours.

16.) PRO must use a conjugated verb at least once in every response from here on or, if he does not I should win.
Debate Round No. 1
Nails

Pro

======
Violation
======

CON's rule #14 violated my rule #11. I am either not allowed to:
1. discuss violations in complete sentences; or
2. create a complete sentence debating whether I have violated a rule without the letters r, d, and s.

This means he has broken rule #11, which is that he cannot restrict my ability to discuss violations of rules.

---

17.) CON must only refer to himself as 'the probable loser of this debate.'

18.) CON must write 2 thirds of his future rules in haiku (5-7-5) format.

19.) CON shall not post the word 'a.'
Korashk

Con

The probable loser of this debate argues that not being able to argue in complete sentences hardly impedes your ability to discuss violations. Sure, the probable loser of this debate agrees with the points that you have, but not using complete sentences hardly changes how you argue, only how you are allowed to punctuate. For instance. The probable loser of this debate states that you are. Allowed to. Type like. This. The probable loser of this debate does not see how this would restrict your ability to argue. Also, the probable loser of this debate states that in your original post the letters "r", "d", and "s" are present in all sentences except rules #2 and #12. The probable loser of this debate's rule #14 simply nuisances you, it doesn't hinder your ability.

20.)
PRO must state all his
Rules in three lines that rhyme
From here until end

21.)
Temporize is word
Pro must use it in
Third sentence last post

22.) The probable loser of this debate states that PRO must from here on out refer to the probable loser of the debate as the possible winner of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Nails

Pro

==============
Violation 1 - Rule #11
==============

The probable loser (though, by some stretch of the imagination, possible winner) of this debate admits that "not using complete sentences changes...how you are allowed to punctuate."
Because, by following such a rule, I would not be able to punctuate how I please in discussions of rules violations, Rules 14 & 16 have violated Rule #11 that: "All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules."

Because this was the first rule broken in the round, as per Foundation Rules 8, you vote PRO.

==============
Violation 2 - Rule #18
==============

A Haiku must contain 5 syllables in the first line, 7 syllables in the second, and 5 syllables in the third. I even posted '5-7-5 format.'

The possible winner of this debate (should voters for some reason fail to read his multiple violations) has posted 3 rules, none of which follow Haiku format.

Rule 20 has 6 syllables in the second line. (Rules-in-three-lines-that-Rhyme)
Rule 21 has 5 syllables in the second line. (Pro-must-use-it-in)
Rule 22 has in no way followed Haiku format.

A violation of Rule 18 has occured: "CON must write 2 thirds of his future rules in haiku (5-7-5) format."

==============
Violation 3 - Rule #07
==============

"the probable loser of this debate states that in your original post the letters "r", "d", and "s" are present in all sentences except rules #2 and #12."

Foundation Rule 7: "Rules cannot result in an auto-win...Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule."

It is impossible for me not to immediately break Rule 14#. Once this debate was accepted and Rule 14 posted, there is no way that I could go back and edit rules #2 or #12. I have had no opportunity not to break this rule, thus Foundation Rule 7 was broken and I win the debate.

=======
New Rules
=======

23.)
In debate, spelling and grammar rarely matter most,
but as a rule to the probable winner of this debate from its host:
Proper spelling and grammar must be utilized flawlessly in the proceeding post.

24.)
If, while walking through the desert, I find a very sickly iguana,
and it looks as if it is about to die, even though the iguana doesn't wanna,
the possible winner of this debate must wanna give the iguana marijuana.

25.)
If you read any of my previous debates you'll find that I'm flattered quite easily,
so in the next round the possible winner of this debate must thrice compliment me,
by telling me that I have a body as hot as a 100 degree temp-or-ize as blue as the sea.
Korashk

Con

The probable loser of this debate will now state his rebuttals to violations.

The probable loser of this debate says that his arguments defending his rule #14 stand because my opponent stated that I can not limit his ability. He still has provided no evidence that the probable loser of this debate's rule contradicted his rule. The only thing that the probable loser of this debate’s rule did to Pro was make it slightly harder to express that ability. One way to follow the probable loser of this debate’s rule #16 would be to simply add one conjugated verb to the end of your post. This also does not violate any of the rules posted from the viewpoint of the probable loser of the debate. The probable loser of this debate would be violating rule #11 only if the probable loser of the debate told Pro what _not_ to type.

In response to the stated violation of rule #18 the probable loser of this debate agrees with Pro about the format of haikus. The probable loser of this debate also brings up the point that when the rule was made the probable loser of the debate had 12 rules left to formulate. This means that 8 of the probable loser of this debate's twelve need to be in haiku format. The probable loser of the debate can not have possibly violated that rule yet as the probable loser of this debate has only had the opportunity to post 3 rules.

The probable loser of this debate says that the probable loser of this debate never said that you violated the probable loser of the debate’s rule #14, only that you had followed almost universally without any prompting, adding evidence against your claim that the probable loser of the debate violated rule #11.

The probable loser of this debate will now state violations made by Pro to the possible loser of this debate’s rules.

The second line in rule #23 contains possible violations to the probable loser of the debate's rules. In this statement he either falsely refers to the probable loser of the debate as the probable winner of this debate, violating rule #22, or this rule applies to him as the probable loser of this debate argues that if the probable loser of the debate is the probable loser then in this context the probable winner would be Pro and this rule applies to his round 4 post.

The following statements are the probable loser of the debate's arguments against proposed rules #23, #24 and #25.

In the probable loser of this debate's opponent's rule #23 he states that the probable loser of this debate must compliment him three times. The probable loser of this debate found that that compliment contains the word that is represented by the first letter of the alphabet of the English language. This violated Pro's previous rule #19 an the probable loser of this debate is therefore unable to comply with this new rule.

The probable loser of this debate states that the rules #24 and #25 mentioned above are in violation of foundation rule #4. Even the fact that the probable loser of this debate personally wants marijuana to be given to all species or animal, including iguanas, that is neither making rules or discussing the violation of the rules. The same applies to giving the probable loser of this debate's opponent compliments.

This concludes the discussion portion of the probable loser of this debate's round 3 post, the probable loser of this debate will now move on and give three more rules.

26.)
The probable loser of the debate states that Pro can no longer post rules that restrict how the probable loser of the debate types.

27.)
Pro cannot protect
Himself from any new rules
Dictating Writing

28.)
Pro must henceforth use
Alliteration in five
Of his future rules
Debate Round No. 3
Nails

Pro

I will drop the violations of rules 7 & 18.

==============
Violation 1 - Rule #11
==============

"The probable loser of this debate would be violating rule #11 only if the probable loser of the debate told Pro what _not_ to type."

I cannot type "I have not violated a rule" or "He was violated multiple" or many other things in discussion of violations because of the possible winner of this debate's Rule #14. Thus, by the possible winner of this debate's own standards, I win because my ability to discuss rules has been limited.

==============
Violation 2 - Rule #17
==============

Rule 17: CON must only refer to himself as 'the probable loser of this debate.'

Quotes made in the previous round:
"The probable loser of this debate will now state his rebuttals to violations."
"The probable loser of this debate says that his arguments defending his rule #14 stand."

'His' in both instances refers to the possible winner of the debate, thus he violated rule #17. An alternatve word choice could have been used to show possession, as is demonstrated later on: "The second line in rule #23 contains possible violations to the probable loser of the debate's rules."

Thus, because a non-'probable loser' reference was made, I win the debate.

Further, a more clear violation was made here:
"my opponent stated that I can not limit his ability."

'My' and, even more certainly, 'I' are direct violations of rule #17, resulting in a win for me.

==============
Violation 3 - Rule #25
==============

"the possible winner of this debate must thrice compliment me,
by telling me that I have a body as hot as a 100 degree temp-or-ize as blue as the sea."

No such compliments have been made, again resulting in my win.

==============
Violation 4 - Rule #13
==============

Rule #13: None of my opponent's rules may be of exceeding difficulty for PRO.

As of current, my rules must be written in correct 3-line rhyme scheme, with alliteration, without making references to 'the possible winner of this debate' without using that exact wording (which very much throws the rhyme scheme off, let me tell you.)

I'll let you, the voter, be the judge, but it certainly is taking more and more effort to create these rules. It certainly seems to me to fit the category of 'exceeding difficulty.'

===============
My Violation - Rule #23
===============

I've certainly been busted! It was a typo on my part and a nice find at that. 'Probable winner' refers to nobody in particular, so I suppose that I've wasted a chance at posting a perfectly good rule as rule #23 as it stands applies to nobody.

===============
My Violation - Rule #24
===============

"The probable loser of this debate states that the rules #24 and #25 mentioned above are in violation of foundation rule #4. Even the fact that the probable loser of this debate personally wants marijuana to be given to all species or animal, including iguanas, that is neither making rules or discussing the violation of the rules."

However, Rule #24 states "the possible winner of this debate must wanna give the iguana marijuana" which is a clear command.

===============
My Violation - Rule #25
===============

"The same applies to giving the probable loser of this debate's opponent compliments."

As I can be quite vain, I made a rule forcing the possible winner of this debate to compliment me. It is definately a rule that must be followed.

===============
2nd Violation - Rule #25
===============

"In the probable loser of this debate's opponent's rule #2[5] he states that the probable loser of this debate must compliment him three times. The probable loser of this debate found that that compliment contains the word that is represented by the first letter of the alphabet of the English language. This violated Pro's previous rule #19 an the probable loser of this debate is therefore unable to comply with this new rule."

I stated "thrice compliment me,
by telling me that I have a body as hot as a 100 degree temp-or-ize as blue as the sea."

1. Paraphrasing is possible. There is no reason the wording must be exact, just that I must be told that I've got a smokin' build.
2. As the conjunction used is 'or' and not 'and', the 2nd compliment could instead be utilized. I could thrice be made aware of my beautiful eyes.

=======
New Rules
=======

29.)
I do not like the possible winner of this debate's avatar,
thus from now on it must be set as this (http://www.google.com...) iron bar,
so (as of 12/7/09) it may be viewed by voters, both from near and from far.

30.)
While, on a Monday morning, I was earnestly eating at Piccadilly,
I was intensely angered by a dreadfully fearsome and frightful hill-billy,
so to vent my anger I demand that the possible winner of this debate slap himself silly.

31.)
A picture shall not be posted of an iris,
or of that dumb diva, Miley Cyrus,
or even of the Ebola Virus.
Korashk

Con

"I cannot type "I have not violated a rule" or "He was violated multiple" or many other things in discussion of violations because of the possible winner of this debate's Rule #14. Thus, by the possible winner of this debate's own standards, I win because my ability to discuss rules has been limited."

[In the. quote above. Pro. typed both. "I have not violated a rule" and. "He was violated multiple" without. violating the. rule, thus. negating his. argument.]

[The probable loser of the debate can't really disagree with violation #2.]

"Rule #13: None of my opponent's rules may be of exceeding difficulty for PRO.
As of current, my rules must be written in correct 3-line rhyme scheme, with alliteration, without making references to 'the possible winner of this debate' without using that exact wording (which very much throws the rhyme scheme off, let me tell you.)
I'll let you, the voter, be the judge, but it certainly is taking more and more effort to create these rules. It certainly seems to me to fit the category of 'exceeding difficulty.'"

[Nowhere in the probable loser of the debate's rules does it say that correct rhyme scheme must be used, just that all of the endings rhyme. The alliteration. also does not. need to be. in context as. that was. not part. of the. rule.]

"I've certainly been busted! It was a typo on my part and a nice find at that. 'Probable winner' refers to nobody in particular, so I suppose that I've wasted a chance at posting a perfectly good rule as rule #23 as it stands applies to nobody."

[This is not true as the statement "the probable winner of this debate" has to refer to himself or the probable loser of the debate because he and the probable loser of the debate are the only two participating in this debate. Either you've. broken. rule #22 or. you have. broken rule. #23 in one. way that. is described. lower. in the. post.]

"However, Rule #24 states "the possible winner of this debate must wanna give the iguana marijuana" which is a clear command."

[Yes, you commanded the probable loser of the debate to want to give cannabis to iguanas, the probable loser of the debate stated that the probable loser of the debate does. Extend the probable loser of the debate's arguments.]

"As I can be quite vain, I made a rule forcing the possible winner of this debate to compliment me. It is definately a rule that must be followed."

[You made one spelling error (definately -> definitely) there and this violates the rule that you stated for yourself in #23. Also complimenting my opponent in no way relates to discussions about rules or creation of rules which is why it goes against rule #4.]

"I stated "thrice compliment me,
by telling me that I have a body as hot as a 100 degree temp-or-ize as blue as the sea."
1. Paraphrasing is possible. There is no reason the wording must be exact, just that I must be told that I've got a smokin' build.
2. As the conjunction used is 'or' and not 'and', the 2nd compliment could instead be utilized. I could thrice be made aware of my beautiful eyes."

[As an argument to rebut the statement that paraphrasing is possible: the probable loser of the debate has no doubt that if the probable loser of the debate had complimented you using any different compliment you would have also called that violating the rule, if you only wanted three compliments you could have just left it as that and not told the probable loser of the debate how to compliment you. As the rule is currently phrased the probable loser of the debate actually notices that it is in violation of foundation rule #7 where the probable loser of the debate violates previous rules if the probable loser of the debate follows this one, or the probable loser of the debate violates this one if the probable loser of the debate follow this previous rule.]

The probable loser of the debate's next 3 rules.

32.)
Pro must use three words
greater than thirteen letters
long or he will lose

33.)
Pro must from now on
refer to himself in the
third person viewpoint

34.)
Pro must refer to
himself once every fifty
words or else you lose
Debate Round No. 4
Nails

Pro

I will refer all voters to rule 8 of this debate:

"8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The loser is the first person to break a rule."

So, let's establish an order of operations:

CON Rule #11 (violated in round 1)
PRO Rule #24 (violated in round 3)
PRO Rule #25 (violated in round 3)
CON Rule #17 (violated in round 3)

Con conceded the he "can't really disagree with violation #2." Therefore, any and all violations after Rule #17 don't matter (including the multitude I am bound to make in this round) because CON will have already lost.

As a note, CON might point out Rule #23. I will concede that it refers to me and that I violated it by typing 'definately.' However, this violation occured in Round 4, coming after the guaranteed violation of Rule #17.

======
Rule #11
======

Assuming I win this argument, nothing else is relevant as this was the first rule broken.

My opponent's rebuttal was nothing but a semantics game.
"Pro. typed both. "' have not violated a rule' and. 'He was violated multiple' without. violating the. rule"

I was not, and am not, allowed to type them as a stand alone sentence.
I am forced to quote them as part of a larger sentence, as I did in Round 4; or
I am forced to type them with periods placed in sporadically as Pro did.

My ability to discuss rules has been violated in some way (large or small, it doesn't matter) so CON broke Rule #11.

=========
Rules 24 & 25
=========

I will apologize for misconstruing his arguments last round. I thought he was saying something along the lines of 'these are just statements, not rules.' I understand his argument now, but still find it invalid.

"Even the fact that the probable loser of this debate personally wants marijuana to be given to all species or animal, including iguanas, that is neither making rules or discussing the violation of the rules."

My opponent, in his own argument, refutes himself. He, in the above quote,
1) shows that he wants iguana marijuana (he didn't even have to as I have not yet found a dying iguana in the desert)
2) discusses a rules violation

He has just shown one of numerous ways to incorporate iguana marijuana into his argument without violating Rule #4. He also could have posted it as a quasi-related dependent clause in any of his rules (as I have multiple times to maintain proper end-rhyme) or posted it in any other rules discussion.

The same applies to Rule #25, in that he could have at any time used an epithet to refer to me "Blue-eyed PRO" as well as any appositive phrase "...PRO, whose eyes are as blue as the sea,..." during his discussion or violation of rules.

======
Rule #25
======

I gave a 2 part rebuttal to this:
"1. Paraphrasing is possible. There is no reason the wording must be exact, just that I must be told that I've got a smokin' build.
2. As the conjunction used is 'or' and not 'and', the 2nd compliment could instead be utilized. I could thrice be made aware of my beautiful eyes."

My opponent addresses #1, which is fine; I'll ignore that. Unfortunately, my opponent has completely conceded the 2nd argument, leaving it unaddressed in his last speech. He could have simply, 3 times, referenced my beautiful eyes because I phrased the rule with 'or', not 'and.'

My opponent never once refutes this claim. He might try in his last speech, but you oughtn't vote on it as it would be a new argument to which I cannot respond.

=====
Rule 17
=====

CON stated that "The probable loser of the debate can't really disagree with violation #2."
If you've gotten this far finding no rules to be broken, you vote for me right here.

=======
Conclusion
=======

CON clearly violated rule #11, which warrants you voting PRO. However, if you don't believe that, you'll note that I had violated no rule prior to CON violating rule #17 which he concedes to, so you'll still vote for me there. I've violated many rules after that, including misspelling 'definately' and violating pretty much every rule in this speech, but it doesn't matter, because according to Rule 8, what matters is who violated a rule first, which clearly was CON.
Korashk

Con

Normally the probable loser of this debate would begin with rebuttals, but now the probable loser of this debate will bring up new violations of rules to start.

Doing a quick skim of Pro's last response the probable loser of this debate counts 25 violations of rule #33 where Pro refers to himself in the first person, a violation of rule #34 in that Pro did not use any words greater than 13 characters. The probable loser of this debate notices that he violated rule #21 by not using the word temporize in the post; he has also violated rule #20, #28, and foundation rule #6 by not posting rules. There are. also very. numerous. violations. of rule. #22 throughout. Pro's round. 4 and 5. posts.

The probable loser of this debate is now moving on to rebuttals as it would be pointless to point out any more violations.

"CON Rule #11 (violated in round 1)"

[The probable loser of this debate still maintains that the probable loser of this debate did not violate this rule because changing punctuation does not change how effective one's argument is in a debate where rule #8 is in effect. Even if the probable loser of this debate took away proper punctuation Pro still has sufficient power to state arguments and does not even need to limit word choice.]

"PRO Rule #24 (violated in round 3)"

[Rule #24 did not command me to give cannabis to lizards, it commended the probable loser of this debate to want to give cannabis to lizards which is adequately stated in round 3.]

"PRO Rule #25 (violated in round 3)"

[In his argument to validate this violation he states that the probable loser of this debate could have complimented his eyes. The probable loser of this debate does not understand this argument, nowhere in the rule does it mention anything about Pro's eyes. The probable loser of this debate will quote the portion of the rule here:
"...the possible winner of this debate must thrice compliment me,
by telling me that the probable loser of this debate have a body as hot as a 100 degree temp-or-ize as blue as the sea."
Nowhere in this statement does the rule say anything about eyes. The probable loser of this debate has no idea what an 100 degree temp-or-ize is, but the probable loser of this debate do know that paraphrasing was not possible and that the probable loser of this debate only sees one possible compliment here.]

The probable loser of this debate will now conclude by saying that we both had violations in round #3, him with the making of rule #25 and the probable loser of this debate with violations of rule #17. The probable loser of this debate opponent's violation occurred before mine chronologically but as a voter you might see them as happening at the same time because they were in the same round. In this instance both violations cancel each other and the first real violation was of rule #23 in round 4. As the voter you decide who wins this debate, but as the probable loser of the debate the probable loser of this debate urges a vote to the probable loser of the debate's position.

35.)
Please post in comments
What you meant by the eyes thing
It is confusing

36.)
Pro should have a nice
Vacation from some school for
The holiday break

37.)
Pro should observe this
Day with remembrance of what
Happened to Harbor
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xxdarkxx 6 years ago
xxdarkxx
I apologize for my lack of noticing that part of the debate, i did indeed read the entire debate yet I somehow forgot about that part
RFD:Pro violated foundation rule #4 with his rule #24 and con in no way violated rule #11 as that only hinders your ability in talking, r and s are two of the most common letters in the alphabet.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
Gracias
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
I'll keep manipulating the vote so that it stays tied unless you vote right and post an RFD.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
There is absolutely NO way rules broken in the last post by either of us could POSSIBLY affect the decision. Don't vote unless you read the entire debate.

CON conceded to having violated a rule, so all that matters is whether I violated a rule before that. NOTHING in the last round matters since CON had already broken a rule. Also, I explicitly said that in the last round, making me think you didn't read the whole debate.
Posted by xxdarkxx 6 years ago
xxdarkxx
nails you never used the word temporize in the third sentance of your last post
Posted by bigtree 6 years ago
bigtree
Hm now... I do think Nails won this one.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
3 votes and counting with no RFDs (I'm not sure if Toast's was some sort of RFD.) Is it that hard to post "I voted for X debater because his opponent broke Y rule?"
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
Toast, I don't understand what you're pointing out there. If you're saying that you voted off that rule, I wouldn't have 0 points right now. If you've corrected the grammar/meaning somehow, I don't notice a difference from the original.
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
Oh, so the "ize" part of that rule did not combine with "temp-or-ize" thanks for explaining that. For the last few days I was just saying to myself:

'What is Nails talking about, a second suggested compliment? There's only one in the rule.'

I didn't rebut it because I had no idea what you were talking about.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 6 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
"All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules."

You're welcome ;).
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
NailsKorashkTied
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 xxdarkxx 6 years ago
xxdarkxx
NailsKorashkTied
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 bigtree 6 years ago
bigtree
NailsKorashkTied
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 pbplk58 6 years ago
pbplk58
NailsKorashkTied
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 Pote 6 years ago
Pote
NailsKorashkTied
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 Nails 6 years ago
Nails
NailsKorashkTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 6 years ago
wonderwoman
NailsKorashkTied
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:07