The Instigator
hauki20
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Logician
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

It was wrong for Facebook to delete the group "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day!"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/21/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,759 times Debate No: 12104
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (14)

 

hauki20

Pro

I hope someone might accept this debate, but I doubt it since, in my opinion, there really isn't anything to support the opposing view.

Some background information: Everybody Draw Muhammed Day was a group in Facebook that was started because, due to a depiction of Muhammed in a recent episode of South Park, the creators of South Park got death threats. This caused many feelings of anger and the call for justice.

As most of you will remember, a lot of muslims got very pissed a couple of years back over cartoons showing Muhammed and this resulted in the deaths of 100 people. This Facebook groop was established to send a simple message: "We are not intimidated by your threats and will fight for freedom of expression even at the cost of our lives." At its peak, the group had about 100,000 members and about 9000-10,000 pictures, and the growth at that time was extremely fast.

And then, deja vu. What had happened before happened now. The Pakistan goverment banned Facebook and over 400 other web sited (including Wikipedia and Youtube) because of this one group.

Then Facebok submitted to muslims and deleted the group with little to no warning.
----

Good luck to anyone who accepts.
Logician

Con

I'd like to thank hauki20 for setting up what I'm sure will be an interesting debate. I will be opposing the motion, thereby arguing that Facebook were within their rights to delete the referenced group. In this opening round, I won't provide much detailed argumentation, rather giving the overview of my case that will be further detailed and expanded as necessary in later rounds.

P1) Facebook is a private site, which people choose to participate in, and as such Facebook has the right to set out caveats on people's useage of the site. Agreeing to these rules if we join and use Facebook, we do not have the right to criticise Facebook if we contravene them and they punish the individual / group accordingly.

--- Observations ---
In order to join Facebook, one has to agree to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Section 14 says: "If you violate the letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop providing all or part of Facebook to you." [1]
In order to create a group on Facebook one is told, at the very first step: "Note: groups that attack a specific person or group of people (e.g. racist, sexist or other hate groups) will not be tolerated. Creating such a group will result in the immediate termination of your Facebook account." [2]

P2) Lots of Muslims - extremists and non-extremists - see Muhammad as someone who should not be depicted, and take great offence at any such depiction. Regardless of the group's primary intention, the creators were aware of the offence that would have been caused - after all, as my opponent pointed out, the group was created in the aftermath of such offence being caused by the South Park episode.

C) There are two legitimate avenues that Facebook have, according to the above, to delete the group:

- Hosting such a controversial group exposes Facebook to risk: the backlash of the Islamic community, plus the political backlash - evidenced in my opponent's Round 1 with Pakistan's action of banning Facebook due to this controversy.

- Whatever the primary intention, the act of insulting a significant proportion of the Islamic population was inevitable and must have been foreseen by the group's creators. This can be seen as "attack[ing] a specific...group of people"[2], and so is in contravention of Facebook's rules on the creation of groups.

If just one of these options were true - and I argue that both of them are - then Facebook were justified in deleting the referenced group. Therefore, I urge people to oppose this motion. I await my opponent's response.

Sources:
[1] http://www.facebook.com...
[2] http://www.facebook.com.... If you don't have a Facebook account, see the relevant section here: http://img337.imageshack.us...
Debate Round No. 1
hauki20

Pro

Thank you for accepting. I'll begin by making my case.

1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Bill of Rights, and almost every bill of rights in a first world country states that all persons have the right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful demonstration, etc. Needless to say, the recent Facebook's decision violates every one of these principles that are one of the main reasons we have come from the dark age to modern civilization (science is dependent on free speech). Now, let's take a look at The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, American Bill of Rights and the Finnish Basic Rights (since that is where I live) and see how many violations occurred. I will not mention some of the not so obvious ones and will focus on the easily provable violations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Articles 2, 3, 17 (section 2) 18, 19, 20, 28 and 30 are violated. There are 30 articles, of which 7.5 are violated. This means that Facebook's decision violates about 25% of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not a good start.

The American Bill of Rights: First Amendment, and arguably the Fifth Amendement ("...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" Facebook was depriving people of liberty with no "due process of law") are violated. Since The Bill of Rights is composed of ten amendments, the percentage of amendments violated is either 10% or 20% (depending on how one views the fifth amendement)

The Finnish Basic Rights (Perusoikeudet) [in the Finnish Constitution the listing of basic rights consists of sections 6-23]: Sections 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17. Of 17 basic rights, 7 were violated, which means that Facebook's decision violated ~40% of the Finnish Basic Rights!

[quote]I will be opposing the motion, thereby arguing that Facebook were within their rights to delete the referenced group.[/quote]

If you forget the huge number of documents stating human rights the decision (like the American Bill of Rights) violated, even if it was legal for them to do so, it might not be the right thing to do. I can legally do many things which might not be right, say, play poker with a gambling addict who is has a fairly good life and win 10,000,000 euros. After he gives me all the money he has, he still owes me, say, 5,500,000 euros. Then he would have to sell his house, car, and anything else he owns to repay me, and that might not still be enough, so he would be in debt to me for the rest of his life. Was that wrong of me to do? (Perhaps not the best example, but you get the point.)

[quote]P1) Facebook is a private site, which people choose to participate in, and as such Facebook has the right to set out caveats on people's useage of the site. Agreeing to these rules if we join and use Facebook, we do not have the right to criticise Facebook if we contravene them and they punish the individual / group accordingly.[/quote] I addressed the legal right of Facebook to do something vs. what is wrong and what is right above.

--- Observations ---
In order to join Facebook, one has to agree to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Section 14 says: "If you violate the letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop providing all or part of Facebook to you." [1]
In order to create a group on Facebook one is told, at the very first step: "Note: groups that attack a specific person or group of people (e.g. racist, sexist or other hate groups) will not be tolerated. Creating such a group will result in the immediate termination of your Facebook account." [2]

[quote]P2) Lots of Muslims - extremists and non-extremists - see Muhammad as someone who should not be depicted, and take great offence at any such depiction. Regardless of the group's primary intention, the creators were aware of the offence that would have been caused - after all, as my opponent pointed out, the group was created in the aftermath of such offence being caused by the South Park episode.[/quote]

The group was established to send a message: "We can't be bullied or threatened out of our rights. The killing of Theo Van Gogh and the murders of numerous people (over 100) involved in the Muhammed cartoon controversy may have frightened newspapers etc around the world into self-censorship, but we will stand up for the freedoms that are one of the reasons our civilization works so well! We will live free or die!" The maker specifically stated numerous times that he encourages participants to make non-hateful pictures and focus on funny and smart ones. He also said that the intention of the group was not to insult the average muslim, but rather send a message to those who would suppress freedom of expression. However, I cannot provide the link to such statements as the group has been deleted. However, in the successor group that has about 2000 fans, the description says, as of 21.5.2010, 22:46 (GMT +3): "Racist/insulting messages and trolls/spams will be deleted.

This is about having the right to draw whatever we want without being scared of death threaths.
We will not give up our freedom!"

[quote]Hosting such a controversial group exposes Facebook to risk: the backlash of the Islamic community, plus the political backlash - evidenced in my opponent's Round 1 with Pakistan's action of banning Facebook due to this controversy.[/quote]Do we want to send a message to those wanting to suppress free speech and freedom of expression that it truly is this easy to get us to give up and start self-censoring/censoring? I do't think so.

[quote]- Whatever the primary intention, the act of insulting a significant proportion of the Islamic population was inevitable and must have been foreseen by the group's creators. This can be seen as "attack[ing] a specific...group of people"[2], and so is in contravention of Facebook's rules on the creation of groups.[/quote] The group was established to, like I said, send a message: "We can't be bullied or threatened out of our rights. The killing of Theo Van Gogh and the murders of numerous people (over 100) involved in the Muhammed cartoon controversy may have frightened newspapers etc around the world into self-censorship, but we will stand up for the freedoms that are one of the reasons our civilization works so well! We will live free or die!" The maker stated numerous times that he encourages participants to make non-hateful pictures. He also said that the intention of the group was not to insult the average muslim, but rather those who would suppress freedom of expression. However, I cannot provide the link to such statements as the group has been deleted, although he makes similiar statements here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

[quote]If just one of these options were true - and I argue that both of them are - then Facebook were justified in deleting the referenced group. Therefore, I urge people to oppose this motion. I await my opponent's response.[/quote] Well, there is something called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, but even if they were legally justified to do so does not mean it was the right thing to do like I've tried to show.

Summary: The decision 1) Sends a message we're weak and easily threatened out of our rights.
2) Violates human rights as set forth by the UN and countless nations all over the world.

Sources used:

1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org...
2) The Constitution of Finland (in English, the basic rights are sections 6-23): http://www.finlex.fi...
3) The American Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov...
4): Everyone Draw Muhammed Day (back up): http://www.facebook.com...
Logician

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. Before seeking to defend and re-inforce my arguments, I'll deal with the two conclusions that he provided, in reverse order:

=== REBUTTAL ===

1) That Facebook's ban "violates human rights"

No, it doesn't. Looking at the two most relevant documents used - the UN Declaration and the US Bill of Rights (as Facebook is based in the US) - none of the articles quoted apply to this case. To deal with them very briefly:

US Bill of Rights:

a) The First Amendment does give people freedom of speech, however this is not without restrictions. An example of this is bullying - is a playground bully, when he belittles his victim, within his rights to do so by virtue of the First Amendment? Of course not: speech that fundamentally undermines a person's identity should not be free. How about if the bully doesn't believe what he is saying is causing offence - maybe even doesn't want to cause offense (perhaps by reckless use of the N-word) - but knows nonetheless that offence is being caused? Surely the principle still applies: in this circumstance, his speech should not be free. This surely applies especially so when one is insulting the very foundation of one's self-identity - such as religion. Given that the foreseen consequence of the group is to cause severe offense to Muslims, the principle applies to the situation under discussion - Facebook were therefore not in contravention of the First Amendment when they acted as they did.

b) The Fifth Amendment does not apply: no-one is being deprived unduly of liberty by Facebook's actions. They're still permitted to believe what they want, say what they want and do what they want. In fact, they arguably have a better opportunity to say what they want, as Facebook's ban has made international news. Nothing has been deprived of them in this regard.

UN Declaration:

I point out that Article 1 of this Declaration says that people "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." I suggest that knowingly insulting the followers of Islam, as the group creators were doing, is against the spirit of this Article.

a) Article 2 relates to non-discrimination. I don't see how this bears any relevance to my opponent's case.
b) Article 3: see above on the non-deprivation of liberty.
c) Article 17.2: For this article to apply, my opponent must show how a group created online, on a private (Facebook-owned) website, constitutes "property" that belongs to the creators of the group.
d) Article 18: See above on the limitations on freedom of speech.
e) Article 19: Ditto.
f) Article 20: Ditto.
g) Article 28: Ditto.
h) Article 30: Ditto.

For all these reasons, Facebook has not contravened any human rights in banning the referenced group.

2) The message that the ban sends

I have already shown, in the freedom of speech section above, that the group's creators did not have the right to do what they did - there is no way, then, in which they (or Facebook) were "threatened out of their rights". Nor, seeing the gratuitious offence that was caused, were Facebook "weak" in their actions: they did the right thing.

=== RE-INFORCEMENT OF MY ARGUMENTATION ===

1) Facebook, as a private organisation, can set its terms of service.

My opponent rightfully said that legal =/= moral. But given what I argued above about free speech, it was moral for Facebook to act as it did. The fact that Facebook explicitly says in its terms of joining Facebook, and conditions of creating a group, that such actions as those committed by the group creators could result in punitive action, only serves to bolster Facebook's justifiability in what they did.

2) Intention, knowledge, cause and effect

My opponent has made great currency out of the fact that the group creators' intention was to speak out against freedom of speech, and deliberately to create "funny and smart" depictions of Mohammad. Firstly, this misses the point of Muslims' objections - they do not object merely against hateful depictions, they object against ALL depictions. The group would still be causing offence, therefore, even if all of the pictures really were "funny and smart".

Secondly, it is patently clear that many of the pictures posted to the group are hateful. Many of them either propose defacing / destroying the Kaaba or depict Mohammad in compromising and insulting positions. [1] The group is therefore clearly a medium for hate speech - and, though that's clearly not the moderators' intentions, they know that it's a side-effect and continue to allow the group to exist nonetheless.

For both of these, given that the two consequences - speaking out against extremist Muslims, and the insult/offence caused - are a direct result of the group's continued existence, and that the moderators know that both will happen and nonetheless do nothing to stop or stem* the flow, they are morally responsible for both of the consequences.

*They could, for instance, only allow admins to post pictures - perhaps included those submitted by members and vetted for offensiveness. It would lead to less pictures, yes, but not as many pointlessly insulting pictures, which undermines the point that they want to make.)

For all of these reasons, I continue to oppose the motion. I await my opponent's response.

Source:
[1] http://www.facebook.com... The latest version of the group: the one my opponent put up was either mistyped or has also been removed.

Details of the US Bill of Rights and the UN Declaration of Human Rights are taken from the same links provided by my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
hauki20

Pro

Since I've already addressed your points and I'm fairly busy, I'll just address the new points you've made.

[quote]=== REBUTTAL ===

1) That Facebook's ban "violates human rights"

No, it doesn't. Looking at the two most relevant documents used - the UN Declaration and the US Bill of Rights (as Facebook is based in the US) - none of the articles quoted apply to this case. To deal with them very briefly:

US Bill of Rights:

a) The First Amendment does give people freedom of speech, however this is not without restrictions. An example of this is bullying - is a playground bully, when he belittles his victim, within his rights to do so by virtue of the First Amendment? Of course not: speech that fundamentally undermines a person's identity should not be free. How about if the bully doesn't believe what he is saying is causing offence - maybe even doesn't want to cause offense (perhaps by reckless use of the N-word) - but knows nonetheless that offence is being caused? Surely the principle still applies: in this circumstance, his speech should not be free. This surely applies especially so when one is insulting the very foundation of one's self-identity - such as religion. Given that the foreseen consequence of the group is to cause severe offense to Muslims, the principle applies to the situation under discussion - Facebook were therefore not in contravention of the First Amendment when they acted as they did.[/quote]

So, although hundreds of official documents state the freedom of speech and/or assembly, it is absolutely wrong to draw a man who lived over a thousand years ago? If there was a law saying that freedom of speech must adhere to all religious dogmas (like the islamic one), there would be no freedom of speech.

This is going off-topic to the interpretation of the US Constitution, which is a lot more tricky subject. The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,* and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Before we talk about the more tricky subject of free speech and its limitations, let's talk about the right to a peaceful assembly. I remember that, while in the US, I read in a textbook that right to a peaceful assembly is non-negotiable whatsoever unless you are blocking public streets. Well, just how many public roads did the Everybody Draw Muhammed ay block? None. Therefore the freedom to a peaceful assembly is violated.

Since you are maing the claim that one cannot draw Muhammed under freedom of expression, I request for to show a United States Supreme Court's decision that explicitly says that freedom of expression must submit to religious dogma and therefore not drawing Muhammed is more important to the Constitution then freedom of expression.

But, with all due respect, your assertion that one cannot draw a prophet of a religion under freedom of expression is fairly suspicious. However, I will let the voters decide which is more important: religious dogmas or freedom.

Out of curiosity, why would a "[person] with libertarian/philosophical anarchist leanings. Atheist, anti-theist, scientific pantheist, secular humanist." think not insulting Islam is more important then freedom of expression? (Don't take this as an ad hominem, I'm just curious.)

[quote]b) The Fifth Amendment does not apply: no-one is being deprived unduly of liberty by Facebook's actions. They're still permitted to believe what they want, say what they want and do what they want. In fact, they arguably have a better opportunity to say what they want, as Facebook's ban has made international news. Nothing has been deprived of them in this regard.[/quote]

The Fifth Amendement: "...nor be deprived of life, *liberty, or property*, without due process of law..." Arguably they didn't have their liberty taken, but they had their property taken without due process of law. All the pictures - gone. The posts - gone. 100,000+ fans - gone. If this is not property being deprived, I don't know what is.

[quote]I point out that Article 1 of this Declaration says that people "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." I suggest that knowingly insulting the followers of Islam, as the group creators were doing, is against the spirit of this Article.[/quote]Well, I thought of Facebook deleting the group and some muslims sending out death threats (which isn't exactly spirit of brotherhood.) However, since this article is so tricky to interpret and is rather implicit than explicit, it may very well be that both your and my interetations are correct.

[quote]a) Article 2 relates to non-discrimination. I don't see how this bears any relevance to my opponent's case.[/quote]Well, this one is tricky to interpret too, but I thought of Facebook punishing people for standing up for free speech rather than those who stood up for censorship. Maybe a weak point.
[quote]b) Article 3: see above on the non-deprivation of liberty.[/quote]I addressed this above as well.
c) Article 17.2: For this article to apply, my opponent must show how a group created online, on a private (Facebook-owned) website, constitutes "property" that belongs to the creators of the group.[/quote]Some fans submitted pictures they had made. They were deprived without due process of law. And Facebook even says that "all content you submit will belong to you and you alone." or something to that effect. Touche.

[quote]d) Article 18: See above on the limitations on freedom of speech.[/quote] I believe, like I said before, that drawing a man who lived over a thousand years ago is placed within the protection of free speech.

[quote]e) Article 19: Ditto.
f) Article 20: Ditto.
g) Article 28: Ditto.
h) Article 30: Ditto.[/quote]Ditto?

2) The message that the ban sends

[quote]I have already shown, in the freedom of speech section above, that the group's creators did not have the right to do what they did - there is no way, then, in which they (or Facebook) were "threatened out of their rights". Nor, seeing the gratuitious offence that was caused, were Facebook "weak" in their actions: they did the right thing.[/quote] I've said numerously that the group's *intention* was not to offend the average muslim but to show those willing to limit our freedoms that we don't fear their threats. I've quoted the group's description etc to prove my point further.

New sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think both of us have made pretty good cases so far. I've enjoyed debating with you, and maybe we could even do another debate sometime in the distant future. Thank you for a good and fair challenge. ;)

-Hauki20
(Deo Vindice)
Logician

Con

I'd like to return your thanks for what has been a very enjoyable debate. I look forward to the prospect of having another one in the future. To deal with your points, in order:

1) Freedom of speech and property

To characterise this as simply "drawing a man who lived over a thousand years ago" is missing the point. To Muslims, this man is their prophet, the one to whom the divine word of Allah was revealed. This is the sort of man who, for obvious reasons, they want to respect as much as possible. And to deliberately show disrespect to their holy prophet is, by extension, showing disrespect to them. The closest parallel here would be Jesus in Christianity - he "just a man who lived over two thousand years ago", but to Christians is the most important man in their religion. The same levels of respect and disrespect apply.

And when it comes to limitations on freedom of speech, I extend my point on the playground bully. He does not have the First Amendment right to belittle and humiliate his target, and a school is perfectly within their rights to punish him accordingly. This would apply just as much if, say, the bully was targetting his victim's religion, and so is directly relevant here. If someone belittles the very core of religious belief on Facebook - especially when Facebook have explicitly said in terms and conditions that such behaviour will not be tolerated - they should not be surprised when Facebook take action to prevent such actions from causing offence.

This is not a choice between "religious dogma and freedom", as put in the false dichotomy presented in the last round. It is a choice between freedom of religion, and allowing people to belittle and demean other people's religion unthinkingly. It wouldn't be accepted if it was atheists targetting Christians in such a detrimental way; the same should apply when Muslims are the target.

And on the Fifth Amendment, I point you back to what I linked to in my first debating round, specifically where Facebook set out the rules for creating a group. [1] They explicitly say there that contravening their rules may lead to such actions. They knew (or should have known) the risks that they were taken, and they created the group anyway. There's a good reason why the creators are not talking about Facebook taking away their property, and instead focusing on their alleged freedom of speech... because on the former point, they don't have a leg to stand on.

2) Alleged violations of human rights.

All covered above, or conceded in the last round by my opponent. Minor point: "Ditto" means "the aforesaid, the above, the same". [2]

3) The message sent by the ban

Yes, you have said numerously that the group's primary intention was the "show those willing to limit our freedoms that we don't fea their threats". I have not disputed that. I extend my point about the known side-effect of causing offence, and how the group's creators should be held morally responsible for that offence being caused, regardless of that primary intention.

The conclusion is clear. Freedom of speech is justifiably limited when it is abused in such a way as to belittle and offend people, as seen with the analogy of the playground bully. Furthermore, Facebook, as a private site, had the right to set boundaries within this understanding of freedom of speech; they did so, namely that the group could be deleted. They then communicated these rules in such a comprehensive way that no-one creating a group could validly claim ignorance of them.

For all of these reasons, Facebook were within their rights to delete the group. Vote CON. Thank you :-)

Sources:
[1] http://www.facebook.com... If you don't have a Facebook account, see the relevant section here: http://img337.imageshack.us...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Logician 6 years ago
Logician
Hmm.. well, you made that point very well during the debate itself. I happened to make a counter-point to that, which in interests of not extending the debate I won't repeat in length here. I'd just ask people who have Facebook to look into the options available to group moderators. If they wanted to stop people from posting hateful pictures, they can do something far more effective than just asking them to leave...
Posted by hauki20 6 years ago
hauki20
Just an update, the group's backup page's owner said: "guys, the hate has to stop. This is about our right to draw whatever we want and stopping those death threats. If you want to talk about Islam itself (except if its news related), use the discussion page. You hate Islam/Muslims? Click "Unlike" and stop posting here." I don't mean to extend the debate, I just wanted to show that the group's intent was not, after all, to insult.
Posted by kerseycool 6 years ago
kerseycool
This debate is more of an interpretation of the events. One side sees it as trying to offend the other, the other sees it as free speech. I think it was started as freedom of speech, and some people just wanted to offend. I personally participated, and I drew Muhammad playing guitar. The point is if Muslims want to live in the modern world they have to change their views. Drawing people is not seen as offensive where we live unless it is intended to be offensive on how you draw it. No one is forcing anyone to look at these pictures, if you don't agree with them just don't give it any attention. I also don't think this is picking on Islam, anyone who tries to defy free speech should be criticized by it. Good debate.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Creating such a group using these methods is exactly the same method USA uses at war. The target is a terroristic group, but innocent people get bombed.
Posted by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
The first amendment has freedom of religion
not right to seriously offend religion
and plus they're bothering on purpose and that ain't right
Posted by Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
This is a violation of the first ammendment. At least ban the page for the group in pakistan.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Well said. :) Bothering them just makes things worse I think.
Posted by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
man i may be an atheist but i respect other peoples religions
and Muslims keep to themselves why do you even bother bothering them?
yea some are extreme but hey you can't change them
Posted by whatledge 6 years ago
whatledge
The debate would have been more interesting if it was about the south park episode instead of facebook.
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Everybody Draw Muhammad Day was such nonsense. I'm glad it got deleted as it just degraded into an Anti-Islamic hate fest.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Sisco 6 years ago
Sisco
hauki20LogicianTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
hauki20LogicianTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by AlahE 6 years ago
AlahE
hauki20LogicianTied
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 MsScribbles 6 years ago
MsScribbles
hauki20LogicianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by NewBoy 6 years ago
NewBoy
hauki20LogicianTied
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 Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
hauki20LogicianTied
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 innomen 6 years ago
innomen
hauki20LogicianTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
hauki20LogicianTied
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 kehustler14 6 years ago
kehustler14
hauki20LogicianTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 6 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
hauki20LogicianTied
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