The Instigator
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
Skanarchy
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,455 times Debate No: 970
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (17)

 

Tatarize

Pro

The God in "In God We Trust" on United States currency is a clear violation of the establishment clause of the US constitution and as such is unconstitutional.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

"In God We Trust" is a religious statement and the United States government has no right to make religious statements on our behalf.
Skanarchy

Con

To understand this, we must understand what our government was based on. It goes back to (my spelling sucks) gallieo and newton. At that time we learned fundemental truths about how nature worked, and simultaneously people like John Locke, came up with fundemental truths about humans. We have fundemental rights, that are given to us by a supreme being, is what they decided. The founding fathers were from various sects of Christianity. So our American rights are given to us by god, and the people who founded our government were men of god, so we should logically except religion into our government right? WRONG! No. All of the founders especially Jefferson were part of something called deism. Diesm is a philosophy, and not a religion, its the belief that there is something up there, ie nature, or god or what ever. Its that belief that they base our fundemental truths on. One nation under god and in god we trust are just a reflection of the philosophy our government was founded upon and NOT the religion our government was founded upon.

In the declaration of independence it says "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", no of the Christian's god, not of the Muslim's god, but of Nature's god. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

Seperation of church and state is created by the declaration of indepence.

So the existence of god in our government is good, because that is what makes our fundemental rights, fundemental. Such as free speech, trial by jury, and so in the bill of rights. The existence of a Christian god is bad, but it says nothing about the Christian god.

So to answer your arguement, no "in god we trust" is not a religious statement, its a deist statement, which is philosophy. The god in, "in god we trust" is just the concept of a higher being, any higher being ranging from nature, to Allah, to the Christian god. Seperation of church and state really means serperation of like the actual church running the state or the other way around.
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Pro

We did not, as you say, learn the fundamental truths about how nature works during the time of Galileo and Newton. I know this because even today we don't know the fundamental truths about how nature works. We did via Galileo and Newton get great insights into the scientific method which did lay the bedrock for the enlightenment which is, in principle, what our nation is founded on. You claim that all of our founders were deists, this is false. A number of them were Christians many were Episcopalians and Congregationalists even a Roman Catholic, probably more than a few atheists and several deists to be sure. It is far more accurate to say this nation was founded by Episcopalians than deists. Though it could be said that deism is nothing more than sexed up atheism. This is probably not a fair assessment but the materialistic view of the world with a nature God kick-start isn't much compared to the all-powerful supernaturalist gods of today. And the lack of dogma and defined belief does smack of atheism.

The assessment that "In God We Trust" is simply a an element of ceremonial deism (this is actually the argument you're using even if you don't know it) is completely untested. However, given the origin of the phrase "In God We Trust", this argument isn't called for. "In God We Trust" was added to our coins after a Christian Minister sent a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War asking that God be included on the coin so that in the future when they find these coins they will not think that the United States of America is a "heathen nation". Far from the views of the founding fathers as a historical reference the phrase was added during the civil war as an emblem to the future so that they would know that this is a nation which discounts the rights of religious minorities and uses the machinery of the state to tell atheists and non-believers that their religious beliefs are wrong.

http://www.treas.gov...

In fact, the Deist god wasn't exactly a God you could trust either. More of a First Mover who kickstarted and ignored the universe. The common phrase "God is Dead" is a reflection of this idea. If you require a deist first mover God to start the universe you don't need one today. So, in theory, such a first mover could exist without being immortal. Thus, "God is dead" allows for the first mover God but rather than ignoring the universe, he simply ends.

The topic of the debate is whether or not the phrase "In God We Trust" is constitutional, not if it seems consistent with the Declaration of Independence. Yes, admittedly the DoI does assert the deist God gives them rights and, as such, the Divine Right of the Kings doesn't apply and they can give their reasons for disagreeing and cite the reasons why these rights have been violated. Thus giving them a reason to declare independence against a Godly king. It is taken largely from the ideas of John Locke, who argued that there are unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. Rights however, are not conveyed by deists gods or by Christian gods, they derive from our mutual understanding that they exists, on the grounds that we want them to exist. I won't kill you because I don't want to die. Universally everybody has a right to life, because everybody has given up their right to kill. There has been a lot more work on moral theory and it is no longer needed to delegate the reasons to, as Locke did, divine figments.

The Separation of Church and State is established in the Establishment clause of the first Amendment of the US constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The Supreme court held that this was intended, as Jefferson wrote, to create a wall of separation between church and state in Everson v. BoE. This court case has largely been the focal point of our understandings of first amendment law for the last fifty years.

The question comes down to whether or not "In God We Trust" is a violation of these cases of established law. Looking at the Everson decision:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

Note the provision against passing a law to "aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another". Later decisions expand this to include no religion at all. We can also test the constitutionality of something with the Lemon Test:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

"In God We Trust" violates the first. We know the reasons for the addition and they were anything but secular. Finding a distinction between us and a "heathen nation" in the future seems hard pressed to be "secular" and certainly doesn't look that way to us heathens by any stretch. The second prong (you only need to violate one) is violated as the government's action clearly dictates that atheists are wrong and theists are right. The third prong is clearly violated via every argument that violations of the establishment clause are okay because the next thing you know they'll want to take "In God We Trust" off the money. Giving the religion an odd argument like this actively and defending it so profoundly does a lot to mix the two when they should clearly be on different sides of the wall.

We have our rights because the constitution says we have the rights. And to argue that we need to allow respecting of establishments of religion because the government is thusly founded is an odd claim. 'Of course we can violate the constitution, if we couldn't, the constitution would be meaningless!' Hm?

1) A deist statements would still violate the constitution as it would show preference to deists over non-deists.
2) The statement is not a deist statement, the history clearly spells out that it's a Christian statement.
3) Even if what you said was true, the ambiguity of discerning God from God is beyond what citizens should be asked to do.
4) Even if what you said was true, many Christians take it clearly to mean the Christian God. This would be acceptable if it supported all religious beliefs, however the term 'God' cannot be generalized sufficiently to allow for the belief of 'No God'.
5) You based this deist notion on an incorrect notion that all the founding fathers were deists. They were largely Christian although no where near as devout as your average Christian clamoring that this nation was founded as a Christian nation would like to believe. Episcopalians and congregationalist and folks of those sorts.
6) Regardless of the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers went to an effort to exclude God from the constitution. The DoI isn't a binding document.
Skanarchy

Con

The founding fathers were Christian true enough, however this has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this debate. Deism is not a religion, it is a philosophy. Locke, Hobbs and Jefferson were all Deists. If I win that Deism is a philosophy and that in god we trust is a Deist statement then I win this debate, if you prove me wrong on these two points than I am wrong and you win.

Deism is a philosophy not a religion. The Christians that established our government understood two things; first that organized religion and state should not be mixed and that secondly we have fundamentally guaranteed rights from a higher force. Deist statements are not religious statements, and to deny the existence of higher being denies the basis of the bill of rights. So obviously if we deny the existence of a god ( christian, nature, muslim or anything else) we deny the very reason to have the first amendment. So if you win you also are admitting that the first amendment is worthless.

The reason I spoke of the declaration of independence was to help explain the reason behind the first amendment and why deism is relevant.

Now clearly your strongest argument lies in the fact that a Christian submitted a letter to have the words on it. However even if that was the intention, the actual words do not specify any particular religion. It does not say our god or the Christian god. So despite the original intentions, the word god does not imply any single religion, therefor it does not violate separation of church of state. Even if many Christians claim it to be their god, it simply does not say anything about religion.

:) this is my first debate! its fun.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Pro

The fact that the founding fathers are largely nominally Christian is certainly a point, you are arguing that the "In God We Trust" on coinage is ceremonial deism and thus not "real religion" and thus acceptable by the first amendment. I hold that:

1) The founding fathers were not largely deist, the largest represented faith was Episcopalian.
2) According to the established explanation by the Treasury department it was placed on coins as a forward looking remark to portray America circa 1860s as not a heathen nation.
3) Even if it were ceremonial deism it is still unconstitutional. It is still saying that my religious beliefs are false. That is not acceptable by the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Deism is a religious establishment, it is the idea of the first mover God, nature's God. The God who created the universe and then ignored the universe. My religious belief, does not allow for even that: It is belief that there is no God. You cannot use the mechanism of the state to actively deny my religious position. Just as you cannot endorse this position in spite of the Christians who hold that God DOES interact with the universe.

You argue that:
1) Deism is not a religion (rather a philosophy).
2) "In God We Trust" is a Deist statement.
3) It harks back to the founding fathers.
Therefore: "In God We Trust" is not a religious statement and thus constitutional.

This argument suffers from four problems.
1) Deism may not be a religion, but it is a religious statement.
2) "In God We Trust" is not a Deist statement it is a Christian statement.
3) It does not hark back to past deism but looks forward.
4) Constitutionality is decided not simply religion's statements but religious statements.

== Deism need not even be a religion to be in contradiction to religious opinion. That is the state of the first amendment. The state cannot endorse a religion or use the mechanism of the state to speak on a religious matter, so the Everson decision established. Saying there is a deist God, is saying that religious beliefs in contradiction with that statement are wrong. This would be mine as well as swaths of Christians who believe that God still interacts with the universe.

== The Treasury website specifically cites the events which gave rise to the inclusion of "In God We Trust".

-----
The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:

I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.
----- http://www.treas.gov...

We see clearly from the history that "In God We Trust" was added after a letter by a Minister on the grounds that the Sec. of Treasury was also a "Christian" to distinguish this from a "heathen nation".

== The phrase does not hark back. The previous ideas religious or philosophical did not play a role. "Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?" - Would not people of the future think us heathens? Clearly they were looking forward not backwards as the argument claims.

== Religious statements such as "In God We Trust" cannot be constitutionally allowed by the state. It need not be a religion, only religious. I do not trust in God, why should my money?

--

You are wrong on both counts as to the understanding of the founding fathers. It need not be organized religion, just religious statements violate. "There is no God" is not statement of a specific religion, but it certainly is a religious statement and unconstitutional for the state to make.

Regardless of the Declaration of Independence, our rights do not need to derive from a "higher force" or "Nature's God." You cannot violate the constitution to give it a "basis". It is unneeded, as well as false. The reasons behind the first amendment are to protect the people from the government. So that the government cannot press upon the people things they do not endorse, for example, "YOU TRUST IN GOD!" -- I don't, and the government has no right to contradict my religious position on the matter.

The origin is roughly: 'You're a Christian, so you must understand we need to honor God. Add God to a coin. In the future then, people won't look back and think we are atheists.' -- Sorry, those intentions demolish your argument. They can't be specifically Christian AND be specifically deist.

The word "God" need not respect a specific religion. It need be a religious statement, made by the government. I cannot, for religious reasons, support it. Saying "In God We Trust" on our coins, is just as unconstitutional as writing "There is No God" on coins.

Christians understand it to be their God. That alone entangles state with religion. If you tried to take it off, you'd get strong objections... strong CHRISTIAN objections, on RELIGIOUS grounds. That violates the third prong of the Lemon test proving unconstitutionality.

Thank you for the debate.
Skanarchy

Con

Skanarchy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Tied it!
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
WTF? My opponent resigned and I'm currently losing by a vote?
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Coolman,
1) The Fed doesn't print money. Money is printed by the mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Both fall under the Treasurer of the United States.

2) The Fed isn't private it is semi-private and is largely in charge of the banking system in the US. They do a lot of work with money, distributing it etc.

3) Even if the Fed were somehow in charge of printing money, the US government wouldn't be permitted to give the Fed the authority to print money with religious mottoes.

4) The mottoes were added by acts of Congress in the 1860s and the 1950s.

5) Again, the Fed doesn't print money. That is done by the BEP.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
spencetheguy, episcopalian is a form of diesm.

It's actually Church of England. Though, it might as well be deism. It is nominally Christian.
Posted by coolman 8 years ago
coolman
This is a different angle on the subject. But I find the seperation of church and state irrelevant in this case. Our money is printed by the Federal Reserve. From what I understand, contrary to popular belief, the Federal Reserve is not directly an entity of the U.S. Government.
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
kels113 -

There's no need to recall all the currency. I'd be perfectly happy just not minting new currency with the religious motto on it. Eventually all of the old currency will move out of circulation (that's why we print new currency all the time). After all - that's how "in god we trust" ended up on our currency - they didn't recall the old currency, they just let it fall out of use and slapped the motto on all of the new currency (in fact, "in god we trust" didn't appear on all currency until 1936).

Currency doesn't last forever. The "average circulation life" of a $20 bill is only two years. The "ACL" of a one-dollar bill is only 21 months (and dollar bills represent 45 percent of the currency in circulation). Coins last longer, but I'm fine with some of the old ones rolling around (I still find wheat pennies every once in a while).

It doesn't matter if there is "always" currency floating around with the "god" motto on it - the fact that there are people in the US who wanted "god" on the money isn't what offends me - what offends me is that the government went along with it. What matters is that the government stops perpetuating favoritism and free promotion for Christianity.

Ignoring all that, your argument is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy. It would be equivalent of saying that we shouldn't have passed the Civil Rights Act because it would be expensive for stores, schools and government offices to integrate and because people would still continue to hate blacks. It's invalid.
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
katiesunshine -

I'm offended by the money saying "in god we trust" for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it's free promotion of the Christian religion. It also allows the more ignorant among us to use that superficial gesture as ammunition for their argument that the US is a theocracy and that we should fund religious institutions wholesale (which is what is literally going on right now with the "faith-based" charities that are now eligible for federal money, which is patently-unconstitutional).

So now you know at least one person. With Tatarize, that makes two.

I do appreciate the country I live in; the fact that I'm allowed to express an opinion contrary to that of a majority of the country without being thrown in jail or burned at the stake attests to the freedom I enjoy here. The greatness of that country, however, has nothing to do with religion - and in fact, the greatest threat to such liberties has historically always been religion.

How about instead of me getting over it, you instead get over the need to use the government as a crutch to prop your belief system up. Is Christianity really so weak that it needs to constantly be advertised through the government to continue to exist? I should hope not for your sake.
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
goldspurs -

1) The fact that 90 percent of the US (an overestimation) describes itself as Christian is irrelevant. We're not a true democracy - we're a representative republic, and the Bill of Rights protects the minority from the "tyranny of the majority."

2) The addition of "In God we Trust" was SPECIFICALLY Christian in nature and was intended solely to highlight and promote the Christian religion (at the behest of a minister from Pennsylvania). The same goes for "under god" in the pledge - that was added at the behest of the Knights of Columbus for the specific purpose of discriminating against athiests (whom it was wrongly believed were all Communists, and vice versa).

http://www.ustreas.gov...

3) Atheism is not a religion. It is a classification, like monotheism or polytheism. All atheism denotes is the lack of belief in a god or gods; it has none of the other features of a religion (like doctrine, rituals, symbols, etc.). A great example is that Buddhists are atheists.

4) Removing "god" from the currency makes the government SECULAR, not atheistic. One would have to put "there is no god" on the currency for it to become discriminatory against Christians (or more generally, monotheists).

5) You don't have to like every Supreme Court ruling, but what you're attempting to dodge is the fact that hundreds of years of SC precedents support the separation of church and state.

6) The Washington Monument was built with private donations, so the group that collected the money and built it is free to put whatever inscriptions on it that it wants. It has absolutely no bearing on this debate.

7) The Declaration is not a governing document any more than the Mayflower Compact is. It should say something to you that in spite of the religiously-touched language in the Declaration, the Constitution stands in stark contrast as free of such religious mentions.

...cont'd...
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
goldspurs -

...cont'd...

8) Washington had every right to mention his beliefs - even in his role as president. One does not have to abandon one's faith when taking office. The only time religion conflicts with the first religion in that respect is when one attempts to use the office to proselytize to captive audiences. There are a variety of writings that attest Washington was a supporter of the separation of church and state:

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support." - Washington, August, 1790

9) The claim about the proclamation thanking god, as near as I can tell, is plagiarized from a pro-theocracy website and either the citation is wrong, or the author is lying. The book it purports to draw its information from was published in a different year, and the quoted passage appears nowhere in the book.

10) The founding fathers DID want religion to be absent from the institutional workings of government. That's why they barred religious tests for office in Article 6, and that's why they set up the Establishment Clause in the first amendment. To wit:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison, July 10, 1822

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution" - Thomas Jefferson, 1776
Posted by sethgecko13 8 years ago
sethgecko13
Tatarize -

Excellent work.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
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 redinbluestate 8 years ago
redinbluestate
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 8 years ago
mrmatt505
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by malmal16 8 years ago
malmal16
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by logicalsoul 8 years ago
logicalsoul
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SocialistRI82 8 years ago
SocialistRI82
TatarizeSkanarchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30