The Instigator
jdizzle
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Xparkz
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Kid's should be able to vote!

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: 4/27/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,224 times Debate No: 11889
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (9)

 

jdizzle

Pro

There is no good reason why kids and teenagers are allowed to vote. People say that their minds are not developed enough, but look at the fools we let vote who are adults. A lot of kids are smarter and brighter than adults, and there is no reason kids should not be able to vote just because of their age.
Xparkz

Con

I thank Jdizzle for this debate, good luck to him.

So since Jdizzle hasn't defined what Voting should mean, i'll define it in my own ways, so Voting means to "make your choice" And Kid means a person under the age of 18.

So people of the gallery, seeing these definition let's take into account what Pro has said so far, he has said that there is no good reason why kids should not vote, seeing how he says "kid's" we are going to say that all "kids" under the age of 18 will vote, this includes 5 year olds, 10 year olds, even 2 year olds. Are we really going to allow young children who most likely still live with their parents vote? Not only do they have most of their decisions made for them they are also not responsible enough to choose who should lead a country.

So exactly what is the fundamental question in this debate? It is, "Is allowing Children to vote going to benefit or harm our society?"

Pro said that "alot of kids are smarter and brighter than adults" So what kids are we talking about here? how many under 18 year olds do you know that have completed education? Most people who vote have completed high school thus having a good degree of education, under 18 year olds most likely have not completed high school, and therefore they are probably not "smarter" or "brighter".

I wil now continue towards my constructive case.

Okay so seeing how the people under 18 do not a high school graduated degree, cannot support themselves, and most of the important decisions are not made by these "kids". Are we seriously going to allow these people to vote?

Most likely these kids will fall into what other people think rather then themselves, children like to play games, why must they also listen to the problems in the government? Most likely these kids will not know who to vote for, and would listen to their parents, or friends for who to vote for.

Not only has Pro neglected what adults really do, he believes that children should have the responsibility of who should run the goverment. What's next? Are we going to start allowing the children to have seats in the Government? Making decisions for us because they are apparently" Smarter and Brighter? People of the Gallery. I think not.
Debate Round No. 1
jdizzle

Pro

Now sir, when referring to kids I didn't mean kids that do not have a developed mind yet. I was mainly referring to those who can think for themselves, and that age is about 9. Well you brought up the fact that why should we let kids without an education vote; then why should we let adults without an education vote? We let these people vote because America is a Republic, and everyone UNDER the government should have a SAY in the government. Do kids have to abide by laws?
Yes. Do they have any way of influencing these laws? No. So I could go as far as saying that by not letting kids vote, they are slaves under the law, with no option to change their state of living.

You have also brought up that most kids would just follow what their parents say. But is it not true that as adults almost most all of us share the opinion of our parents? I think a kid would more likely follow their own personal opinion then their parents.

And why shouldn't kids be able to hold seats in the government? Eligibility should be based on skill and expertise, not age and a college degree.

Women were not allowed to vote; now they are. African Americans were not allowed to vote; now they are. I think it is only a matter of time before kids can vote.
Xparkz

Con

I must first apologize to the Gallery for Pro's debating skills, not only had he not defined what "kid" was he also is now saying that the way i defined it is incorrect. Very well Pro, i will accept your new definitions.

So Pro then goes on to say that if kids without an education can vote, why can adults without an education vote? Well it is a surprisingly simple concept that Pro simply does not get. Adults.Fend.For.Themselves. An adult is a person over the age of 17, America is a Republic, what is a Republic? a republic is a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them. So since Pro has put the "kid' limit at 9 i will now use them as an example of Pro's poorly thought out debate. So typically what grade are 9 year old children in? Most likely grade 3,4 or 5. Now lets think for a minute, according to Pro, children would be seen as responsible enough to vote for the leader of their government. And what limit do we put the voting age at? 18, so if we were to allow kids to vote, what's next? Allowing children to purchase alcohol? Allowing them to buy cigarettes? Why not Pornography too? Puberty starts anywhere from 9-15 years of age, children are bound to be curious and are most likely responsible enough to do these things right? Wrong. Children don't even fend for themselves, who buys their food? Who clothes these children? Who gives them shelter? They definitely didn't get it by themselves.

Gallery lets take a look at what he says next, "So I could go as far as saying that by not letting kids vote, they are slaves under the law, with no option to change their state of living." I would like you people to reread that sentence again, they are slaves under the law? Slaves? Pro, please, do you not abide by the laws which are governed before you? Do you not notice stop signs,traffic lights, and speed limits? Do we all abide by those? I sure hope so, or else this world would be in complete chaos. So according to Pro if we were to follow these laws we would be considered SLAVES. If you are reading this you are most likely NOT a slave, and last time i knew having slaves in North America was illegal. But then again if you were a slave, you would not be a slave of the law. According to Pro.
So Pro then says that children have no option to change their state of living. I would like you to read that once more, how much does the government affect children? Now since Pro has talked about America i will base this argument on it. America has a pretty good government, and usually when new leaders come into power, they will not drastically change the laws so children will be forced into labour or something harsh like that. The decisions made almost barely affect the children. But who do they affect the most? The Adults, the Parents, the ones of the age of 18.
A child still has the ability to do whatever he or she wants to do, the American government has put no boundaries saying that this child will not be able to follow their career or choice because they are who they are.

Pro then goes as far as saying that children are not supposed to listen their parents, what are you Pro? a rebel? Do you not listen to your parents? Do you not listen to the rules and decisions they make for you? He then carries on to say that children should hold seats in the government! Do we actually want a 9 year old boy or girl creating the laws, which everybody in America would then have to follow? Those laws were be absurd and downright offensive to the average class citizen. "Eligibility should be based on skill and expertise" And with that sentence Pro has basically ruined himself in this debate, he has just contradicted himself, had i not said that most children do not have a high school graduate degree? If you believe that adults are not allowed to vote because they do not have an education, then how come you want children, 9 year olds for heaven's sake! to lead the country in decision making? Children have no majors, or degrees, or even graduation certificates for high school. So they obviously do not have enough "skill and expertise"

Pro then talks about the past, i will deal with that in my next argument, seeing how as these argument is already much to long. For that Gallery, i apologize, but i hope you agree with me that side Pro has proven absolutely nothing to help his case and therefore most likely no reason to carry this debate on.

Pro, i wish you good luck in this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
jdizzle

Pro

I will deal with con's arguments in the order he has made them.
1) Apologizing for me to the gallery is not very fashionable, or of good manner. It is just plain rude, so please let us be more polite in the future. Thank You.
2) Your argument is that after kids get voting rights, beer cigarettes and pornography rights are next, am I correct? Well this is not very likely at all, because what kid wants to smoke and drink? And the ones that do will get their hands on it, one way or another, even if it is illegal. What you do not realize is that right now many kids are smoking and drinking, even though they are under the age limit. So even though it is not likely to happen, a law allowing kids to drink and smoke would change nothing.
3) Who says that children don't fend for themselves? They do, but just in a different way than adults. The average everyday child struggles with school, activities, and the need to fit in. The only difference between them and adults is that children are restricted in many areas, in this case voting, so it seems to the casual onlooker that they are fended for by their parents.
4) Con said "So according to Pro if we were to follow these laws we would be considered SLAVES." In no way are adults slaves. You see, people over 18 get a SAY in the laws, and they have to obey them. Whereas, people under 18 DON'T GET A SAY, yet they still have to follow laws made by others. And isn't a person forced to do something against their will a slave? Now you might say, "I don't agree with this or that law so I'm a slave!" But the reality is, you are not because you had an OPPORTUNITY to influence the outcome of each law.
5) Now Con has said that government does not affect children. Now think, Who sets up schools and makes rules for them? Who goes to these schools? Who provides health care for those under the poverty line? Can't children and their families be under the poverty line? Who cannot legally make contracts? Children. Who denies the right for children to choose where they live? The government. Why, children don't even have the right to not be assaulted! There are many more examples, but I have only chosen to list a few. So as you see, the government has a huge impact on the lives of children.
6) Pro has twisted my words again, for I never said that kids shouldn't listen to their parents, I just said that they shouldn't have to agree with them. And I never said that children should hold seats in the government, I just said that it should be allowed. You forget that to hold a government seat, one must be elected. Now if a nine year old is very smart and savvy in politics, why shouldn't they hold a seat in the government? And also, in saying skill and expertise, do you really think that all of that depends on a college degree? I think not, but rather how smart one is. And if kids were allowed to vote, who said they would vote in a 9 year old that knew nothing? If the kid knew nothing, than I think that adults would all vote against him, and there would be no way he or she could hold a seat. So what is there to worry about?

I thank you con, for accepting this argument, and I am eagerly awaiting your response.
Xparkz

Con

Thank you Pro for a very good response.

Since Pro has failed to present any new points in this debate so far, i will spend this argument refuting what Pro has said.

Pro starts his argument with saying that " what kid wants to smoke and drink?" Well what kid wants to vote and worry about the government? thats "adult stuff" and for those that DO read about the government they may not be allowed to vote but they can discuss what they think with their parents, who are in fact parents and are in charge of the child's life. How long is it when a new election is started? In the USA it is probably 2-4 years, Governments can make a lot of changes in that time.

Pro misinterprets my way of saying that children fend for themselves, when i say "fend for themselves" i mean survival, what is a child to do without proper guardians? Who helps the child when they are struggling through school? Who signs those permission slips saying they are allowed to take part in activities? Who registers them in school anyway? Now why are children restricted, and not allowed to do what the adults do? Because the majority of the people believe that children are not responsible enough. And the average "onlooker" knows whether a child's guardian is taking care of them or not, giving them food, shelter and clothing. The basic necessities of life.

So Pro says that everybody over 18 gets a chance to change the future, children can shape their own future, why should children NEED to vote? How many of these children WOULD vote? Not only would allowing them vote be a waste of time, but also inconveniently increase problems with the government. Actually to refute what Con said that people over 18 can change the law, how many laws are actually passed that the people get to have a say in? Why doesn't the over 18 year old people change the law however they please? Because they system is not that simple! And that is what Pro side fails to recognize.

Pro also says, "Who sets up schools and makes rules for them? Who goes to these schools? Who provides health care for those under the poverty line?" So who sends these children to school? Who provides them with school supplies? Who SUPPORTS THEM so they can go to school? Why can't children legally make contracts? because the average child is not RESPONSIBLE enough. "Who denies the right for children to choose where they live?" If you want to run away that is completely your choice, nobody is forcing you to do anything, especially the government. "Why, children don't even have the right to not be assaulted!" That is just simply ABSURD, Pro if you desire to be assaulted you don't have to report it to the police, you can always just keep it to yourself. If you WANT children to be legally raped, attacked, robbed, and kidnapped. and have no government to protect you, then not only do you not deserve the right to cast a vote, you also don't deserve to have a right in a say in the government!

"I never said that kids shouldn't listen to their parents, I just said that they shouldn't have to agree with them. And I never said that children should hold seats in the government" Then why do we have parents? Gallery let us think for a moment? Why do we have guardians to protect us? Why do we have people to make decisions for us? Pro then goes on to say that children should be allowed to be in the government, and does a explanation on how they should be, but then finishes with nobody would vote for them anyway. Then why allow them? To open a seat for a child is just going to cause more problems for the government itself, unless the child is a genius, the child won't know finances, the child won't know all the laws, the child won't know everything they need to know to LIVE BY THEMSELVES. I would like to ask Pro to name any politician who does not have a high school graduate ( mind you i never said college ).

As i said before i would deal with Pro's final point in his argument which was about rights. He talks about sexism, and racism. These were huge problems which were profoundly wrong but children will legally be able to vote, when they are old enough! With these older problems, women could not vote no matter their age! Same goes for African Americans. But children will get the opportunity to vote when they are old enough, and according to the government, and the vast majority of North America, the age is at 18.

So Gallery what have we seen? In the end of Round 3, Pro still fails to realize what adults do in his life, and what responsibilities he will face when he becomes of age and must start thinking about fending for himself. But evidently he has not yet done so.

And as did you Pro, I eagerly await your proud response.
Debate Round No. 3
jdizzle

Pro

Thank you for being very thoughtful in your response, but I found a few major flaws, and I'll explain them in the order you gave them:
1) You said "Well what kid wants to vote and worry about the government?" If you said that sir, then you have seriously underestimated the American youth. Most kids are not just oblivious to what is happening in politics, they are interested in it. And if they will be able to have a say in the government, I would bet that many more kids would show an interest in the government. The reason a lot of kids do not worry about government is because they have no say in it! Why should anyone care about something they can't participate in or influence? This is just talking about the kids that aren't interested in politics now, but a lot of children already are! As you probably already know, I am under the age of 18, and guess what? I'm interested in politics and government! And also you said that kids could just discuss it with their parents; but will that really influence their parents voting? We all think our own separate ways and we all have our own opinions; I don't think those of children are regarded very highly by their parents either.
2) You said "...what is a child to do without proper guardians? ...Who signs those permission slips saying they are allowed to take part in activities? Who registers them in school anyway?" Well couldn't kids do that for themselves if they were allowed to? I think that children could fend for themselves just as well as adults, if given the opportunity. And you also said that the majority of people think children aren't responsible enough. Well how do you know the majority thinks that? And if you are right, well how do you know children aren't responsible enough?
3) In what way would allowing children be a waste of time and increase problems? There would be virtually none, except a minor amendment change. Con also said "...how many laws are actually passed that the people get to have a say in?" I'll tell you how many: every single one! Even though one may not have a direct influence on every law, adults get to vote for their representatives, which in turn vote for laws. And yes, the American system IS that simple.
4) You keep talking about how children are not responsible enough, but how do you know? The thing is, people just assume this, and kids cannot prove themselves because no responsibility is TRUSTED in them. You also said that "If you want to run away that is completely your choice, nobody is forcing you to do anything, especially the government." Actually, yes they are! Adults send police after children that run away, and the children are classified as CHINS (child in need of supervision). And you twisted my words again! I didn't mean that it should be legal to abuse or rape children. What I said is that "Why, children don't even have the RIGHT TO NOT be assaulted!" Which means children CAN be assaulted without punishment. Examples? Spanking, one kid beating up another, and adults forcing a child to do something. All of these things can happen without punishment from the government. Again you have twisted my words to make me look bad, when I clearly said the opposite of what you claimed.
5) THEORETICALLY a child should be able to hold a seat in the government. I hope that answers your questions and complaints.
6) Adults are supposed to guide and lead us to PREPARE us for the decisions we are to make in the future. Well why aren't say 13 year old kids prepared to take part in government?
7) Isn't discriminating against a certain age just as bad as discriminating against a different race or gender? I honestly don't see a difference, and I hope that you, ladies and gentlemen of the gallery, see that point.
8) And wow that was a hard cut at the end but ok but I can fend for myself for the record, and I very much respect the adults in my life.

I hope you all see that every point con has tried to prove has come up short, and that it is in good democratic nature to let kids vote.

Thank you for your time, Xparks, and thank you gallery for taking time to read this debate. Vote pro for equal rights!
Xparkz

Con

Thank you Jdizzle for this intriguing debate.

So ladies and gentlemen of the gallery what have we seen in this debate? Throughout the debate Pro has brought forth no actual points of his own besides the racial and sexist issue which is now a thing of the past. But Pro also spends all of his time repeating the same thing over and over in this debate but still fails to effectively counter my points.

So once again since Pro has brought forth no new points i will spend the rest of this debate refuting what he has said so far and at the end i will put 1 small final point down.

Pro begins off with his own interests in politics, about his own wants and desires, but Pro is not the only child in America and i would like to bring back the point that Pro stated from the ages of 9 and up. Pro himself is around 15 years of age, allowing children to vote at age 9 would not only render useless but also cause inconvenience and an inaccuracy of votes which i will get to later.

Pro's second argument is once again undermining what adults do in his life. He states that children could sign the forms themselves if they were allowed to, but i'll bring back what i have been saying in this debate. Why do children have to have it signed by an adult? Because the majority of children are not responsible enough. Pro says that i need proof? Look around you Pro, look at everything around you, you see the evidence everywhere. Things we can and cannot eat or drink, things we can do or cannot do, things we are not allowed to do without consent obviously the whole WORLD believes that people under the age of 18 are not responsible enough. Or your parents could just give birth to you and leave you there to fend for yourself, because according to Pro that is exactly what we can do. Pro some how fails to realize that it is his guardians that pay for the house he lives in, his guardians that pay for the food he eats, and his guardians that send him to school for an education. Pro is going to say, oh well we could do that too if we were allowed. No you could not, unless you want to spend the rest of your life working a minimum wage job, no you could not. You need an education and who provides for that? Who sets you up for your future? Who starts the interest in politics? Your guardians, If your parents did not buy the paper, or buy a TV or receive the news who would provide the interest? You gave life to you so you could do the things you do? You sure as hell couldn't do that yourself.

In his next argument Con states that it would not be a problem if we let children vote, i will deal with this simple statement at the end. Con says that the people we vote into power would represent us and have the ability to change the law, well unless you can see the future you will not know what laws will be passed and what your representative will say. It seems that not only does Pro undermine his guardians but also the whole American Government.

Children have chances to prove themselves everyday, but the reason we have laws is so that this world can be kept in order and have a chance to keep the world from turning into chaos. Pro either you do not have parents or you do not believe they love you, because if your children ran away, would you send people to look for them? If your parents do not love you they don't have to file a report of a missing child, it's only because they care for you. Pro says that children are assaulted and get away with it, but if that is the case America is one bad country. If you can have 2 17 year olds fighting each other and attempting to kill each other. I'm almost positive the police will get involved, there is your example. The reason the police do not get involved with say younger children is because they believe the parents have the ability to handle the situation, and unless it is 1 young child killing the other one, the problem really isn't that bad.

"THEORETICALLY a child should be able to hold a seat in the government." Well then why aren't they holding seats right now? What, because children cannot vote? There are more adults then children out there, and if you say that the children are so intelligent and smart then they would not vote a child to run a country.

"Adults are supposed to guide and lead us to PREPARE us for the decisions we are to make in the future." It's a good thing Pro is learning something in this debate... "Well why aren't say 13 year old kids prepared to take part in government?" Never mind. What Pro doesn't see is that parents ARE preparing us for the future, whether you want to be a political leader, a doctor, a lawyer or even a business man. Children are attending school so they can get a education, with that education they can become anything they want to be, and who funds that education? Adults. Can children fund it? Sure if they made an annual salary from a dedicated job, which they don't have.
Gallery i am sorry, i fail to see what Pro is trying to say in his 7th argument, i do not believe that Pro has opened his eyes wide enough to look outside his walls and into his surroundings. How can you discriminate an age? if you wait a couple years you will turn to whatever age you wish to be. Saying that people discriminate against age is like saying that because you are 9 years old you are not allowed to drink is discrimination, saying that you can't join a university aged soccer team because you are 11 years old is discrimination. One final analogy is like saying you cannot get retirement income because you are 13 years old. You will grow older and in time you will attain the age requirements. While with your sex or race you cannot naturally change that, So Gallery i hope that you will see the foolishness in Pro's debate and his misunderstanding of the word aging.

And for the record Pro, unless you live by yourself, attend school, work a job, pay for your own food, for your house, and for your clothing. No you cannot fend for yourself enough to survive.

And of course the final small point that i said i was going to get to.
Children like to have fun, it is common nature to have fun, children also have a good amount of time on their hands where they can do a lot of things such as play games, go outside and so forth. So if we allow the children to vote with this extra time they can just vote for whomever they want, whether they have been paying attention to politics or not. This would be devastating to the final result as children would just vote for whichever one looks the nicest but not which one would be the most profitable to the country. The accuracy of the vote of fall dramatically and citizens would have people running who wouldn't be there if it wasn't for children randomly voting for candidates.

So Gallery I hope you all see that Pro has done absolutely nothing but waste his time in this debate and he still fails to prove why children should be given the privilege to vote. Pro then ends his debate with " vote pro for equal rights" That is absolutely and idiotic statement, and i hope the Gallery realizes why without my explaining. I will end with a final statement for this already much to long argument of saying that it would not be the peoples best interest if we allow children to vote because of as i said, accuracy of final votes, uselessness of allowing them to vote, inconvenience, and irresponsible children. This resolution surely must and will fall.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YahwehIsMyRock 6 years ago
YahwehIsMyRock
It is irrelevant that some "kids" may be more intelligent than some adults. They do not pay taxes and therefor have no right voting. They do not have an invested interest in their country. They may have very strong opinions, but no invested interest.
Posted by YahwehIsMyRock 6 years ago
YahwehIsMyRock
It is irrelevant that some "kids" may be more intelligent than some adults. They do not pay taxes and therefor have no right voting. They do not have an invested interest in their country. They may have very strong opinions, but no invested interest.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Gamehero, I do not agree with my parents. At all.
Posted by Gamehero 6 years ago
Gamehero
I am a freshman in high school. I have never seen a kid who did not agree with the views of his parents to the letter. If kids were to vote, it would just be an extension of the parents vote. So if democrats, for example, tended to have more kids, democrats would undoubtedly win the presidency for a long time.
Posted by jdizzle 6 years ago
jdizzle
OK for the sake of fairness I have withdrawn my votes. I'm sorry I didn't know we weren't supposed to.
Posted by jonpistone2 6 years ago
jonpistone2
p.s. jdizzle, voting for yourself at such an early stage---shows not only a lack of class...but yet another reason children should not be trusted with the power of voting on important issues.
Posted by jonpistone2 6 years ago
jonpistone2
This is a joke...not only shouldn't they be able to vote...but id question some adults voting as well.

kids have NO vested interest in their community as a whole...they don't pay taxes (as a group), they do not have the information and knowledge to make life decisions. In fact, I'm not sure college students should be able to vote either. They live a more carefree lifestyle and don't realize the consequences of their election votes.

Kids still struggle to find the difference between youtube and reality....struggle to find the difference between being in love with the only girl they ever dated and dating girls outside their home town. One day girls in school are best friends, the next day they are mortal enemies and then a week later the cycle repeats.

This is a JOKE of a question and I seriously hope you were kidding for starting this.

No doubt, some high school kids are smarter than some adults...but not the majority...not even close.
Posted by Xparkz 6 years ago
Xparkz
Jdizzle you voted for yourself?
Posted by Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
Kids even in there late teens lack the intelligence to make an informed decision. I swear, having been to middle schools, its so chaotic I can't imagine any of these people growing to succesfull careers.
Posted by jdizzle 6 years ago
jdizzle
What issue did I dodge and not respond with clear convincing evidence?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by YahwehIsMyRock 6 years ago
YahwehIsMyRock
jdizzleXparkzTied
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 tylerman001 6 years ago
tylerman001
jdizzleXparkzTied
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 jdizzle 6 years ago
jdizzle
jdizzleXparkzTied
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 lindseyloo92 6 years ago
lindseyloo92
jdizzleXparkzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:10 
Vote Placed by AntibacterialSpray 6 years ago
AntibacterialSpray
jdizzleXparkzTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by sydnerella 6 years ago
sydnerella
jdizzleXparkzTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by blazeratman 6 years ago
blazeratman
jdizzleXparkzTied
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 Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
jdizzleXparkzTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
jdizzleXparkzTied
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