The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Bricheze
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

It is ethically preferrable to give birth to an orphan than to abort pregnancy.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Bricheze
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,358 times Debate No: 7542
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (10)

 

wjmelements

Pro

It doesn't matter if the baby is the product of rape or a one-night stand, it is better for an unwanted baby to be orphaned than aborted.

1. An orphan can be adopted into a loving family.
2. Orphans and adopted children can live productive lives.
3. It is unethical to choose to end the life of another.
4. It is better to live as an orphan than to not live at all.

1.
Many families look to adopt children. These families are loving and would provide a loving foundation for the rest of the child's life.

2.
This seems obvious to me, but I suppose it can be contended. I'll wait to see what my opponent has to say.

3.
In other words, murder is unethical. Because we only have one life to live, to cut it off before it starts is worse than killing an infant.

4.
In general, a life not in suffering is believed to deserve extension. Anything else would be cruel.

This is not the entirity of my case of case; it is just a summary of the points. I shall actually argue my case next round.
Danke,
wjmelements
Bricheze

Con

Legally unborn children are not considered people. It doesn't matter what you or your favorite scientist says, this is fact, and this is a fact we will base our arguments off of, because as of right now, we might not be certain scientifically, but we are certain legally.

Next, it is wrong to plague the adoption system with these infants that normally would have been aborted. I know one could argue that babies are in demand, but this does not solve the adoption issues. There will still be young children ages 2-12 and older teens 12-17 that will never be adopted. The only chance these kids have is to be adopted by someone who couldn't get a hold of a baby. This will only happy if babies continue to be in limited supply and high demand. If abortion is no longer allowed, the huge influx of adoptable babies would take away any chance of these already born children, most of them who have suffered through their childhood, from having any chance of adoption.

Another often over-looked problem is taking care of all these pregnant women we would create. Most people who end up with an unplanned pregnancy are irresponsible and poor. Because they can't afford products that would cause them to stop their pregnancies from occurring in the first place. We can't leave these mothers-to-be-out on the street, but how can we possible afford to take them all in in the current economy and the amount of homeless people that their are already to take care of.

Another issue with stopping abortions would be the parents who would irresponsibly take care of their unborn children. Why would they care how they baby comes out? They were the ones who just wanted to terminate it, and they are simply going to adopt it out when they are done, so what if it is born crippled, how does it affect their lives? They could cause physical and mental deformations from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, by drinking during their pregnancies. Babies could also be addicted to drugs when they are born, causing them to go through painful withdrawals for weeks after they are born; this can also cause them to have a more addictive personality when they grow older, meaning they can become addicted to drugs, alcohol, or food much easier then regular people.

Lastly, where does this end? If the government is allowed to tell us that the fetus is a live person, then what is to stop them from saying a man's sperm has a right to life as well, and we are no longer allowed to practice safe sex? This could easily become a slippery slope, and the first step is a ridiculous one anyways.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First, I will point out the points that my opponent has conceded:
1. An orphan can be adopted into a loving family.
2. Orphans and adopted children can live productive lives.
3. It is unethical to choose to end the life of another.
4. It is better to live as an orphan than to not live at all.
That is, all of them. By not argueing against them, my opponent agrees with them. http://www.geocities.com...

Now, for my opponent's case.

I will start by pointing out that life is greater and more ethically important than any suffering or pain (cenceded by my opponent).
"it is wrong to plague the adoption system with these infants that normally would have been aborted"
But it is even more wrong to kill the unborn. (Conceded by my opponent)

"abortion is no longer allowed, the huge influx of adoptable babies would take away any chance of these already born children, most of them who have suffered through their childhood, from having any chance of adoption."
Dead babies cannot be adopted... And it is preferable to not be adopted than to die (conceded by my opponent).

"Most people who end up with an unplanned pregnancy are irresponsible and poor."
Abortions are expensive. An abortion can cost as much as $1000 (soon to be $4000 dollars in a few years inflation) http://wiki.answers.com... . Most "irresponsible" and "poor" people will not have this money lying around.
Further, allowing them to abort teaches them to be more irresponsible.
As a third response, the costs of living do not outweigh the benefits of living (conceded by opponent).

"how can we possible afford to take them all in in the current economy"
We can afford them by not giving them benefits. Problem solved.
People pay for themselves eventually. Children grow up, work, and earn money. Killing off the future workforce is a silly suggestion to help the economy, especially when one considers the costs of social security.

"Babies could also be addicted to drugs when they are born, causing them to go through painful withdrawals for weeks after they are born"
It is preferable to live than to suffer (conceded by CON).

"we are no longer allowed to practice safe sex"
Another silly argument: By having unsafe sex, just as many sperm die as with safe sex.

"where does this end?"
Glad you asked. Sinse this is an ethical debate, I will examine it as such.
Had the baby been born, he would have lived.
Had the baby been aborted, he would not have lived.
So, the person choosing to abort is choosing whether the baby ends up living or not.
No human has the right to decide whether another lives or not. (Conceded.)
There you go. Abortion is unethical.

"This" ends here. Your final argument is silly, with rash assumptions. However, where does abortion end? Are newborns living? If the abortion fails, do they still need to be killed? Are infants killable? What about teens?
"This" goes both ways.

The resolution is affirmed.
Bricheze

Con

Firstly, my opponents source (http://www.geocities.com...) doesn't prove anything. Those 'rules' were not stated in the first argument and are not published on the debate website. Therefore I didn't technically concede to any of the points.

"It is unethical to choose to end the life of another."

I do not concede to this point. First off, I said In the first few sentences, that fetuses under law, are not considered individual people with rights, freedoms, or protections. Meaning that I consider a fetus living, but not a person or truly a live independent being. It is wrong to take life of another, but it is not wrong to take the life of an unborn fetus that is fully dependent on another human being.

4."It is better to live as an orphan than to not live at all."

I also argued this point. I said that the increase of babies would cause other orphans that are already alive to never be adopted. This forces them into to live the lives of foster homes. Places where they are usual abused and taken poorly care of. Most kids would rather die then live 18 years in foster care, and the large majority of them grow into troubled teens.

Also, I stated that a large portion of these babies would be born with mental and physical disabilities do to their care free mothers not taking care of their babies during pregnancy. Once again why would they care?

"By not argueing against them, my opponent agrees with them."

Actually, I was practicing a common debate technique, where in the first round both opponents state their opinions and then in the next rounds defend and argue each others. I didn't have enough space to both argue yours and state mine. It isn't fair for you to just be able to state your entire side with limitless space, while I have to state my entire side and then argue yours. And my original statement, in and of itself, refuted all of those things I 'conceded' to. Not only that, but as I said before, those rules are not for this site, and you did not state them in the beginning of this debate, therefore they are irrelevant.

"I will start by pointing out that life is greater and more ethically important than any suffering or pain (cenceded by my opponent).

I 'cenceeded' aye?

I never concded to that, and you never even said that for me to concede, you said we shouldn't kill others and kids want to grow up in foster care; not what you stated up there at all.

"But it is even more wrong to kill the unborn. (Conceded by my opponent)"

Once again I didn't concede to that or any other of your points. You can't think of a return argument so you are saying that I conceded to stuff I didn't concede to. Also, if this quoted text already refuted that it 'was wrong to kill the unborn' then I DID in fact refute that point in the last round. So you WERE required to give an actual argument rather then simply saying 'she conceded,' because although I didn't directly argue against that point, I did dispute it. Therefore I didn't concede and I expect to see an argument to this at some point.

"Dead babies cannot be adopted... And it is preferable to not be adopted than to die (conceded by my opponent)."

Once again I didn't concede to this, I refuted it in exact argument. The opposite of conceding.

"An abortion can cost as much as $1000 http://wiki.answers.com...... ."

An answer from a random uncredible person from wiki answers (a website like yahoo, for those of you unfamiliar) doesn't count as a source. It's the same as you saying it, a person easily could have made that up. Not only that but you took the extreme numbers, the PERSON said it could cost 200-1000$ not just 1000$, an average is different then the highest number you can find a link to (I urge voters to look at this 'source')

The truth is this:

"In 2001, the average charge...for abortions... that are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure."

From a CREDIBLE source: http://www.guttmacher.org...

"Further, allowing them to abort teaches them to be more irresponsible."

So you would rather make them take responsibility of their actions by making them stay pregnant, cause deformities in their babies, and do more damage to the already problematic adoption agencies.

"We can afford them by not giving them benefits."

Well that doesn't work, medical bills, doctor appointments, etc. If we are forcing these people to go through with their pregnancy, we can't just simply throw them out on the street. Of course, we could, but then we would just end up with more dead babies, but instead of babies that would have been dead before they could feel pain, these babies would die in stages of birth or later stages of pregnancy. The babies could also be deformed from things such a cerebalpaulsy, which are preventable, if you have the right doctors helping you.

"It is preferable to live than to suffer (conceded by CON)."

Once again many of my arguments went directly against the above statement, meaning that I refuted your argument, not conceded to it. And those rules are not on this website or in your first argument so they are irrelevant.

"Had the baby been born, he would have lived.
Had the baby been aborted, he would not have lived."

Had the baby been born he would have lived (maybe, if he didn't die PAINFULLY from not getting the proper health care)
He would have been adopted, taking away the saving other kids hard lives, that turn into bad lives of crime)
Or he would have been born with FAS, deformations, seribalpolsy , or other serious life diminishing/threatening issues, making his chances of adoption slim to none, and his life in foster care awful, causing even worse problems (that he wouldn't have help with from family) in adult-hood)

"No human has the right to decide whether another lives or not. (Conceded.)"

Not conceded. (for same reasons stated earlier)

My opponent made no attempt at refuting my arguments. Instead he falsely said I conceded, when obviously I did bring up those points and argued them negatively in my first argument.. He did this because he probably didn't have a response.

Also, my opponent (by his (or her?) rules conceded to MY own points:

Current orphans that are not infants will most likely never be adopted if abortions are no longer allowed.

Forcibly pregnant women will not be helped at all financially or otherwise. Causing unborn babies to not be treated well medically and causing more death and deformities; and poor care of children that are not adopted.

Many of the babies would be born with horrible illnesses and deformities, making them most likely not adopted, so they grow up in foster homes where they won't get the attention

Babies who are born addicted become addicted to things more easily

Summary:

Babies that normally would have been aborted have a far greater chance of being born with a preventable problem that will cause them to not be adopted and live a horrible life by not being properly cared for in their childhoods. Healthy babies will become adopted over kids who have been abused and neglected in their childhoods, and will most likely continue to be abused and neglected in foster care, causing them to turn into troubled teens, and eventually adults who often commit crimes, do drugs, and otherwise live a poor detrimental to society lifestyle. Having less orphans would allow a larger portion of them to be adopted, this would in turn create less troubled adults, which would cause less orphans (they wouldn't abuse or simply give up their children for adoption anymore), which would decrease thee amount of child orphans, making a larger portion of them to be adopted, and so on.

Discontinuing abortions would do the opposite of the above cycle, and make it even worse by having many more mentally and physically challenged orphans in the mix.

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

My opponent had a lot of trouble staying on topic in this debate.
Further, she argued that she had not conceded my points without showing which arguments she had used or presenting any new arguments against the points she had already conceded. So, she has conceded them for another round.

Argumentation:
***************************************************
"Therefore I didn't technically concede to any of the points."

Actually, this is the way debate works. If you don't argue against it, you concede and agree.

" 'It is unethical to choose to end the life of another.'

I do not concede to this point."

Too late.

"Not only that, but as I said before, those rules are not for this site, and you did not state them in the beginning of this debate, therefore they are irrelevant."

My opponent does not understand common debate etiquette, which I have sourced. After PRO presents his arguments, CON presents hers and argues against PRO's. My opponent did not argue againts them, and thus conceded my case.

" I DID in fact refute that point in the last round."

You say that but you do not point out where.

"It is wrong to take life of another, but it is not wrong to take the life of an unborn fetus that is fully dependent on another human being."
As I pointed out in round 1, because it would have lived had one chose not to commit abortion, the baby has died. My opponent has not argued against this and has therefore conceded.

The truth is this:

"In 2001, the average charge...for abortions... that are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure."

The average and the maximum are two different things. I pointed out the maximum, and my opponent pointed out the average. I did not lie; I submitted a fact.

"So you would rather make them take responsibility of their actions by making them stay pregnant, cause deformities in their babies, and do more damage to the already problematic adoption agencies."

Not all babies that are aborted are defective; in fact, most aren't. And again, it is better to live with deformities than to not live at all (and my opponent still has not argued against this).

"If we are forcing these people to go through with their pregnancy, we can't just simply throw them out on the street."
We aren't throwing them out on the street; we are simply not rewarding their irresponsibility and teaching them responsibility at the same time.
Government's purpose is not to abuse the responsible on behalf of the irresponsible.

"Of course, we could, but then we would just end up with more dead babies, but instead of babies that would have been dead before they could feel pain, these babies would die in stages of birth or later stages of pregnancy."

This is irrelevant. If the baby would not live to the age that it would be adopted, it does not apply to this debate.

"The babies could also be deformed from things such a cerebalpaulsy, which are preventable, if you have the right doctors helping you."
If it's preventable, then abortion is certainly not the solution.

"medical bills, doctor appointments, etc"
This debate assumes that the baby is put up for adoption. The poor family that gives birth to a baby does not end up paying most of the bills.
Further, cost is irrelevant. Life is an unalienable right.

"Had the baby been born he would have lived (maybe, if he didn't die PAINFULLY from not getting the proper health care)"
Irrelevant; this debate assumes that the baby is born and lives as an orphan.

"He would have been adopted, taking away the saving other kids hard lives, that turn into bad lives of crime"
My opponent presents a new argument here.
She argues that all unadopted babies will grow up to be criminals, which is not the case.

Concessions:
**************************

First, my opponent conceded this:
"People pay for themselves eventually. Children grow up, work, and earn money. Killing off the future workforce is a silly suggestion to help the economy, especially when one considers the costs of social security." (from R1)

My opponent still does not have an argument that anything is more important than life.
"It is better to live a life of suffering than to not live at all" has not been argued against.
And when we prioritize life in this debate, everything clears up. No longer is being born with a mental or physical disorder important, for it is preferrable to be born with such misgivings than to never live.

Summary:
*********************************

My opponent has characterized orphans as "troubled", criminal, and defective. She has described the care of adopting families as "awful", "usual(ly) abusive", and not caring of their child. In most cases, this is not the case.
Orphans can go many great things in the world: http://www.demossnewspond.com... (just an example, not a source)
People love orphans and treat them well. http://www.partnersintl.org... (just an example, not a source)
So, my opponent's hateful comments towards orphans and adoptive families were not based in fact. There are a few isolated cases in which orphans are abused after adoption, but even so, it is preferable to suffer than to never live.

The choice of life or death is one's own. It is unethical to decide whether someone gets to live or not.

The resolution is a choice. The choice is "to give birth to an orphan" or "to abort pregnancy". As I have shown, the first is ethically preferable. I thank my opponent for this debate and wish her luck with conduct and etiquette in future debates.
Bricheze

Con

My opponent has not debated me. He simply restated his arguments over and over again, and ignored mine saying that I never made them, and I instead conceded to them by not responding or making an indirect argument against them, while I did many times. He never once rebutted my argument, instead he restated his over and over again, and when he didn't have a response he simply said I conceded to his argument and I never actually made that argument. Don't be fooled by my opponent, this is clearly cheating.

"Actually, this is the way debate works. If you don't argue against it, you concede and agree."

The truth is I did make arguments against all your points that I 'conceded' to. I will prove this in this last round.

'It is unethical to choose to end the life of another.'

My opponent says I conceded to this, but here is a quote from my arguments proving that I did not concede, that I did make arguments, and that my opponent should have responded with a rebuttal, not with a lie:

"unborn children are not considered people." "It is wrong to take life of another, but it is not wrong to take the life of an unborn fetus that is fully dependent on another human being, one that by current law and science isn't alive."

This is basically the title of the debate, with different words. I can't continue to be the con of this debate if a conceded to it, and I didn't because all of my arguments have gone against that exact quotes. Even by the opponents rules, ones I never agreed to, I still made arguments against this point and I did not concede. I have explained this to my opponent before, but he ignored my explanations as well. By his rules he should have made a rebuttal, but he never did, instead he continuously said I had conceded, even when I pointed out my arguments directly and explained I why I hadn't conceded.

"My opponent does not understand common debate etiquette,"

Did you say we had to follow debate etiquette? I was practicing a technique many people use. If you would have asked me to follow the rules of debate etiquette, I would have, but since you didn't, you didn't have the right to say I conceded in the manner that you did.

"My opponent did not argue against them, and thus conceded my case."

I did argue you them (indirectly in the first round and directly in the second) and you never told me to practice the debate etiquette found on that website. You could have given me that link in the beginning of the debate and asked me to follow the rules. But you didn't, therefore you can not punish me for rules I never said I would follow.

"I DID in fact refute that point in the last round."
"You say that but you do not point out where."

Let's look at the full quote:

"then I DID in fact refute that point in the last round. So you WERE required to give an actual argument rather then simply saying 'she conceded.'"

I was telling you that in the last round you were supposed to refute the argument I had, instead of ignoring it, blatantly lying (saying I never made the said argument), and instead saying I conceded.

"I did not lie; I submitted a fact."

That source was not fact. It was a different, but just as uncredible person answering a question on wiki-answers, and the answer didn't even have sources. Wiki-answers is an even worse source then wikipedia, because the person is not required to include proof, evidence, or sources in their answer.

"So you would rather make them take responsibility of their actions by making them stay pregnant, cause deformities in their babies, and do more damage to the already problematic adoption agencies."

"Not all babies that are aborted are defective; in fact, most aren't."

I have argued that most babies will me defective because their irresponsible parents won't take proper care during their pregnancy. So yes most babies would end up with deformities, as their mothers wouldn't care what happened to them, as they didn't want to deal with the pregnancy in the first place.

"it is better to live with deformities than to not live at all (and my opponent still has not argued against this)."

Yes I have, I said that these kids would grow up without the special care they need in foster homes. Leading to more psychological issues as they grow older and no friends or family to help take care of them. Most likely leading them to insanity, suicide, homelessness, etc. It is true that regular foster kids can do well (true, but fairly rare) but, kids with these deformities don't have much if any chance.

"We aren't throwing them out on the street; we are simply not rewarding their irresponsibility and teaching them responsibility at the same time."

So basically your saying "I want to punish these women for wanting to get an abortion, so I say we shouldn't help them at all, and just hope that the baby comes out alright without the proper health care."

"This is irrelevant. If the baby would not live to the age that it would be adopted, it does not apply to this debate."

Yes it does, if an unborn baby would have been effected in anyway by abortion, then they do of course, apply to this debate. Them not being aborted early on because of the law, then not being taken care of during birth because of no financial aid, and then dieing painfully because not being taken care of, is worse ethically then them simply being aborted earlier on before they could feel pain.

"If it's preventable, then abortion is certainly not the solution."

Kids with cerebalpaulsy, often can't talk, walk, etc. You said we shouldn't give them any financial adi. You can't force a person to be pregnant, unless if you can at least help them financially so the baby is born as healthy as possible. That's unethical.

"The poor family that gives birth to a baby does not end up paying most of the bills."

They would if the amount of babies put up for adoption was increased by the large amount it would be increased by if abortions were no longer allowed.

"Further, cost is irrelevant. Life is an unalienable right."

Why do you keep on saying things are irrelevant, when they aren't? If people can't pay for healthcare and are forced to stay pregnant, then they can't pay to care for their unborn fetuses, and then the babies would be born with many more disease. This is a problem that making abortions illegal would cause, and a point to my argument. Just because it is a point to my argument and goes against yours, it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant.

"Irrelevant; this debate assumes that the baby is born and lives as an orphan."

No it doesn't, you never said that in the first argument or made it a rule.

"She argues that all unadopted babies will grow up to be criminals, which is not the case."

Actually it is the case, proved in a study done:

http://rawstory.com...

"Kids in a foster care are three times more likely to become juvenile delinquents"

"About 56 percent of girls placed in foster care become pregnant as teens" (supports my vicious cycle argument)

"First, my opponent conceded this:"

Please ignore this I made arguments, my opponent ignored them, I didn't concede, and I never excepted these rules anyways.

"She has described the care of adopting families..."

My opponent, once again, has blatantly lied. I said children in FOSTER care, not ADOPTIVE care are abused and neglected.

"The choice of life or death is one's own. It is unethical to decide whether someone gets to live or not."

What about women who are forced to die due to their pregnancies? They should have the right to chose to live or not, why do their unborn children, that can't even speak yet, take presidence over their right?

I apologize, but I can't cover all of the arguments and my closing arguments within 8'000 characters. My closing comments are in the comments, since they are in fact comments :D.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
My opinion on illegality has changed, but my opinion on morality has not.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Morality and illegality are separate issues.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Commenting on a debate that's 9 months old? Well, too late to abort I guess.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
Hmm...I've only been here a few months, but your Big Issues list you as PRO on abortion. Have you changed it since the debate? You espouse the belief that abortion is murder, thus it violates the non-aggression principle and the belief that life is an inalienable right. So, if your views haven't changed, how are you PRO on abortion?

We ought to debate this some time.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
needs mroe votes... badly.
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
Believe what you want, but I am not going to waste my time arguing with you.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
You made the first argument. And I don't want to have another abortion debate, so I thought we could just make a few arguments in the comment section, but apparently you are unable of doing it.

Oh, and it isn't unsportsman-like to tell you that you should be voting on how the debate went, not how you feel. It is one of the only rules people should follow on this website. And you did need to be corrected.
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
A comment to 'Bricheze' As i said before, i DID change my votes fairly, but there is this new thing... it's called "sportsmanship". Have you ever heard of it?

As a response to your arguments:........ if you want to debate this with me, FORMALLY CHALLENGE ME TO A DEBATE. if it is about abortion, i might accept it, but it is impolite to argue in the 'comments' section and to accuse other respected debaters of being unsportsmanlike when you are being just as unsportsmanlike.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
You just don't want them to vote fairly, the way they should, because you lose votes.

Dragon--no answer to my argument?
Posted by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
Because I re-read the debate and decided that you did actually debate well, and it would be unfair to give him all of the points because of my personal opinion, i DID change my vote and give you points that you earned, but i still strongly disagree with your side
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
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 wpfairbanks 8 years ago
wpfairbanks
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
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 dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
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 grayron 8 years ago
grayron
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Vote Placed by MagicalSmoke 8 years ago
MagicalSmoke
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
wjmelementsBrichezeTied
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