The Instigator
joshpleco23
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Radicalguy44
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

King Kong Deserved to Beat V-Rex

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/25/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,530 times Debate No: 11550
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

joshpleco23

Con

Hello, I am Pleco.
In this debate, I shall defend the fact that there is no way King Kong could have beat the V-Rex (Let alone a whole family of V-Rexes) in the 2005 remake of the famous movie "King Kong".

King Kong has been victorious in three battles which he should have never won...

He battled a T-Rex in the 1933 film, and then he battled a giant snake in the 1976 remake of the film. And, in the most recent 2005 remake of the film, Kong faced a family of large reptiles evolved from the Tyrannosaurus Rex known as Vastosaurus Rex (V-Rex for short).

King Kong did not deserve victory in any of these battles!

Since this debate is created for the sake of fun instead of political awareness, there shall be five founds. I only ask that my opponent introduce his/herself and maintains a respectful attitude.
Radicalguy44

Pro

Allright, I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate, even though the style of the debate can't really be implemented in this. I am radicalguy44, and this is my first debate in debate.org and i decided to start easy, and move on to more complex. I am an LD debater, but I also know how to debate in PF and parliamentary.

Allright, let's start this. I won't use a value, nor a criteria since it's kind of useless in this debate..
Resolved: King Kong deserved to beat V-Rex

DEFINITIONS!!
King Kong = An animated movie character made that was captured an later killed. He was fierce, feroucious, and very strong
* V-Rex = a movie character much like a tyrannosaurus rex, but is even more ferocious
* Deserving = qualified for or having a claim to reward, assistance, etc., because of one's actions, qualities, or situation:

I would like to point out that all the Aff has to do is prove that King Kong won that match fair and square, and not prove that King Kong could beat anyone.

CONTENTION 1: King Kong has bigger advantages than the V-Rex. I have seen the video in youtube, and I have seen the superiority of King Kong. First of all, King Kong has hands, and the V-Rex does not, therefore that gives our monkey friend a bigger advantage, since he could hold on to the V-Rex. Second of all, King Kong has bigger fighting abilities as you can see in the video. He bit his opponent's tongue and jumped on top of him. If he didn't deserve that win, I don't know who did.

CONTENTION 2: The domination throughout the fight was clear. If you take a look at the youtube video (), you can see that there wasn't a single time in which King-Kong couldn't defend himself. He basically dominated the whole fight. I defined deserving as "qualified for or having a claim to reward, assistance, etc., because of one's actions, qualities, or situation:". Take a look at the end... "because of one's actions" King kong's action was dominating the whole fight, and therefore that makes him deserving

CONTENTION 3: According to my definition of "deserving", you can see that king kong clearly deserved the win. I dont' see how he didn't deserve it, since he was dominating the whole fight, and he was never defenseless.

CONCLUSION: I believe that whether he deserved it is clear, since of the simple domination throughout the whole fight. he was never attacked nor hurt, therefore King Kong was the one who deserved the win, and I believe PRO should win.

thanks! and I know it's a silly debate, but it'll do
Debate Round No. 1
joshpleco23

Con

I thank my contender for accepting this debate, good luck my friend.
First off, there are many scientific flaws with the 2005 remake of the movie, it is fair to say that the film makers made some major flaws to the physics of there own characters as well. The battle was only won by Kong because Kong is the main character of the movie, saying that he deserved to be a victor of that battle would be like slapping physics in the face.

In response to your three contentions:
1. Allthough King Kong could grab a hold of V-Rex with ease, holding onto him would certainly be a ride. V-Rex has a large tail, which could easily lash out at the ape with drastic force. Plus, the reptile's bite would most likely be ten times more deadly then Kong's, with rows of sharp teeth ready to bite down into the primate's soft, un-armored flesh.
King Kong would have had a harder time opening the mouth of V-Rex, though forcing it shut would be be easy. I am relating this to other reptiles, which have mouths that really lock down when they are shut. King Kong may be faster and more flexible then the V-Rex, but keep in mind King Kong's body is exposed, and he could easily be injured.

2.I don't know if you have seen the movie, but the you tube clip left out most of the fight... There was actually a family of reptiles who attacked, making it even more cheesy that Kong had won. Again, the only reason that things played out the way they did it the movie was because King Kong is the main character. He did not deserve to win that battle. Though King Kong's fighting skills were awesome and boss, the circumstances could have changed drastically for Kong (even in the movie)... There were at least three members in the V-Rex family, all had leathery, armored hides, large mouths, powerful tales, and a mind to kill... They could have easily ganged up on King Kong, latch onto his throat with one of their massive jaws, and killed him.

3. He didn't deserve it because the only reason he did win was because he was the star of the movie. Also, in the movie a series of unfortunate events occurred which led to Kong winning, such as the scene where the predators fall off the cliff (along with the damsel in distress.) I mean seriously, this battle is the equivalent of a fit human trying to fight three crocodiles at once!

So my conclusion is this. V-Rex has thick leathery skin, a larger mouth, a long and muscular tale that could without a doubt deliver a painful blow, a more powerful bite, and the fact that V-Rex wasn't alone would make defeat very unlikely. Perhaps if it was a one on one battle Kong would deserve to win, but the fact that there was more then one V-Rex made it unlikely...

http://surbrook.devermore.net...
Radicalguy44

Pro

Allright, second round I am glad that my opponent responded to the debate quite rapidly. I will first start by defending against my opponent's arguments, and strengthening my own.

1) My opponent attacked my contention 1 by basically saying that the V-Rex had some advantages of his own. This may be true, but what we need to look at, is whether or not he used them the v-Rex may have had potential, but in the end, he didn't use his tail to his advantage, therefore we can't say that the V-Rex deserved to win, just based on his tail and/or other characteristics it has. My opponent also stated that King Kong would have a harder time closing V-Rexes mouth. The key word here is "would". In order to decide what side was deserving of the victory, we need to look at what happened, not at what COULD have happened.

2) Now my opponent is saying that the youtube clip left out a lot of the fight. I used that clip to base myself on the powers of a typical V-Rex. What we need to see is what happened, not what could've happened. They might have had a mind to kill, but Kong's powers over rided the V-Rexes

3) My opponent is making an assumption here, and a prediction. He says that the only reason he won was because he needed to. Whilst the tail could've blown off King Kong, the v-rexes didn't use that, so they can't be called better or deserving.

In short words, my opponent needs to take into account what happened, not what could've happened. Of course their tale could've blown out King Kong, but that didn't happen, so they can't be deserving. Sure it's unlikely, but these things to happen as well.

~Rad44
Debate Round No. 2
joshpleco23

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the response, sorry it took me a little longer to get back to you this time.

My opponent claims that othough V-Rex had certain advantages he didn't use them to his advantage in the movie.
Radical Guy backs this up by saying "we need to look at what happened, not at what COULD have happened." To me, that is a slap in the face to the open minded discussions of the adventure movie genre. The movie writers and the directors dictate what happened on the movie, the story is purely a product of imagination. Understanding this we must keep our minds open not only to what did happen, but what is cheesy or not.
Since Kong went up against not one, but three carnivores, this is a cheesy and very unrealistic battle which was dictated solely by the movie makers, therefore King Kong did not deserve to win. That is basically the finally grilled egg on my roti john for this debate.

My opponent claims that the video clip he posted was to be used as a base on the typical powers of a V-Rex. The V-Rex in the video obviously had most of it's powers held back by the movie makers... If you were to observe the video you would see that the V-Rex typically let Kong beat him down, it wiggled like a worm when Kong had him pinned to the forest floor. This is obviously an unrealistic and cheesy battle.

I would also like to correct my opponent, who says that my argument is based off of an assumption and a prediction. It is actually based off an observation of the V-Rex... Realistically V-Rex would have won, considering that there was more then one V-Rex. The only V-Rex didn't win was because the V-Rex wasn't the main character, King Kong was, and the movie's storyline is dictated by the people who made the movie. Therefore King Kong did not deserve to beat the reptile.

My conclusion is this:
1. What happened in the movie is the backbone of the debate, however, what could have happened is a big part of the debate as well. Like the other scientific flaws in this movie, this fight was just another one waiting to be debated.

2. The battle in the movie was cheesy, and dictated by the makers of the movie, so obviously King Kong would win no matter what. Deserving, or as my opponent defines it, "qualified for or having a claim to reward, assistance, etc., because of one's actions, qualities, or situation", would prove my point. Considering Kong did not deserve it, and only won because he was the main character.

3. We must observe the character's strengths and weaknesses in order to decide who would be more likely to win. In this case, it is a pretty even match, however considering there was more then one V-Rex, there is no way King Kong could have won.
Radicalguy44

Pro

I would also like to thank my opponent for not quitting, since we all need a challenge, right?

My opponent's defense is basically that King Kong only won because he was the main character. As I stated before, we need to observe what actually happened, not what should've happened. There may be many odds against a certain individual winning, but it could happen. My opponent's arguments are ones that attack a different resolution. Perhaps a more adequate resolution for his attack is "should king kong have won" not one where deserving is what's in play. In order to see whether one is deservant or not, we need to see at what happened, not what could've happened. Whilst one may have their odds against him / her, it may happen. Take for example: Humans vs. Monkeys in soccer. Of course it's expected for the humans to win, but the monkeys COULD pull off a surprise and win. They may have been more deserving as well, having more shots on goal, etc. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the odds don't have to be in your favor in order for you to be deserving of victory.

2) My opponent claims that the V-Rexes powers were held back by the movie makers.
How do you expect a creature to still be fighting when it's hurt! How do you expect a creature that is pinned to the ground to fight back? How do you expect a creature that had it's tongue bitten respond to that? It may have been an unrealistic battle, but that does not take away from King Kong being deserving of victory.

3) Again, my opponent says that it was an unrealistic battle, and that V-Rex, REALISTICALLY would've won. That is a hypothetical once more on his part. He may have had a lot of odds to win, but at the end, anything could happen, you don't just need skill to win, you also need to be intelligent.

Now on to my opponent's conclusions.
Basically his conclusions are that the battle was cheesy and unrealistic.

They will obviously be unrealistic. When have you seen a humongous monkey or a V-rex walking on Earth while humans are walking? NEVER. Therefore, it will be unrealistic, but based on what happened, the deserving of victory was King Kong, because of what I have proven before

My opponent has not said, however why King Kong wasn't deserving, all he's said is that V-Rex should have won if there wasn't bias going on. Let's evaluate on what happened, not on what could've happened please.

My conclusion:
In order to see whether one is deservant, we need to see what happened. What happened was that King kong won because he had v-Rex pinned to the ground. We can't say that V-Rex was deserving. How could he, if he was on the ground and defenseless?

For those reasons, I urge you to vote PRO in this debate.

~Rad
Debate Round No. 3
joshpleco23

Con

My opponent again states that we should look at what did happen, and not what could have happened... As I have previously replied to him, the film is fiction and all that did happen in it was dictated, and since both V-Rex and King Kong fought like puppet slaves to the corrupted minds of Hollywood, King Kong did not deserve to win.

A quote from my nemesis: "My opponent's arguments are ones that attack a different resolution. Perhaps a more adequate resolution for his attack is 'should king Kong have won' not one where deserving is what's in play."
I am not going to argue with this... Because it is probably true... However, I still do not believe King Kong was deserving because he was puppeted along by a script filled with too many scientific flaws to count.

It is true, the odds do not need to meet your favor for you to be deserving of a victory. However, King Kong's victory is the equivalent of me beating Chuck Norris in a cage fight only because I was possessed by God. Simply put, it's cheating, therefore King Kong is not deserving.

I shall now respond to questions asked by my fair amant de d�bats passionn�s :

"How do you expect a creature to still be fighting when it's hurt!"
An animal can fight out of fear, anger, defense... and so on.

"How do you expect a creature that is pinned to the ground to fight back?"
V-Rex could have used his tail, or back legs to push King Kong off of him. He certainly wouldn't lay there wiggling around as Kong did what he did.

"How do you expect a creature that had it's tongue bitten respond to that?"
A giant, scaled, unintelligent, , angry, and carnivorous V-Rex? I'm sure he wouldn't respond well to getting his toung bitten off.

My opponent claims anything could have happened... That is not true... What happened was dictated by the script, film makers, and previous films, considering it is a remake.

.
Radicalguy44

Pro

Round 4/5, getting a bit feisty are we?
thanks for getting this far pleco, I appreciate it!

I'll defend towards my opponent's attacks first

A quote from my opponent: "My opponent again states that we should look at what did happen, and not what could have happened... As I have previously replied to him, the film is fiction and all that did happen in it was dictated, and since both V-Rex and King Kong fought like puppet slaves to the corrupted minds of Hollywood, King Kong did not deserve to win"

Why do you say he didn't deserve to win? After all, he dominated the whole fight. Again, I ask for you to look at the definition of deserving. " qualified for or having a claim to reward, assistance, etc., because of one's actions, qualities, or situation:" Notice how it says "because of one's actions", therefore it implies for us to look at the facts, not at the hypothetical s, like my opponent is doing. It's interesting to see how he has not said a valid reason as to why V-Rex deserved to win. All he has said is that King Kong didn't deserve to win (faintly), and has backed it up only with the Hollywood reason. As I have said before, there may be many odds against you, but that doesn't impede one to win.

2nd) "However, I still do not believe King Kong was deserving because he was puppeted along by a script filled with too many scientific flaws to count." He now brings up why King Kong didn't deserve to win. Now he says that he didn't deserve to win because he was puppet-ed around. Again, he is not taking into account what happened, he's avoiding this part, and ONLY arguing based on the fact that Kong was the main character.

I'd like to point out that just because you are the main character does not mean you have to win every single fight you are faced in. There are many examples in which the main character does not win all the fights he does, therefore this should not be a turning point for this debate.

3rd) "It is true, the odds do not need to meet your favor for you to be deserving of a victory. However, King Kong's victory is the equivalent of me beating Chuck Norris in a cage fight only because I was possessed by God. Simply put, it's cheating, therefore King Kong is not deserving"

My opponent agrees with my point now, by saying that the odds do not impede you to be deserving of a victory. By saying this, he has just backfired on his points, since all has stated is that the odds were against King Kong (he said that since it was 2v1, King Kong didn't deserve to win, therefore this quote backfires on him) He brought up an example of him vs. chuck Norris. For all we know, he could've beat Chuck Norris, you never know. As I stated before, not only does skill win you a fight, so does wit.

Now to attack his answers.
"An animal can fight out of fear, anger, defense... and so on" Did V-Rex attack and succeed because he was hurt? NO. Therefore his answer does not apply in this case.

"V-Rex could have used his tail, or back legs to push King Kong off of him. He certainly wouldn't lay there wiggling around as Kong did what he did."
Again, a hypothetical. He could've used his tails, but did he? NO. Therefore there he can't be deserving. Please take a look at the definition of deserving

"A giant, scaled, unintelligent, , angry, and carnivorous V-Rex? I'm sure he wouldn't respond well to getting his toung bitten off."
Of course, he did try and fight King Kong, but failed. He didn't try well enough, since V-Rex made a lot of mistakes. This is not deserving.

The whole turn point to this debate is how deserving is defined. My opponent didn't attack my definitions, therefore he goes with them, and is obligated to look at how it's defined. In order to be deserving of victory, the quality of the fight has to be looked at. Looking at the fight, obviously a hurt animal that couldn't do much, can't be deserving

Please vote PRO!
~Rad44
Debate Round No. 4
joshpleco23

Con

Ah! The last argument, this has been the most challenging argument I've been in yet!

I shall first answer my opponents question "Why do you say he didn't deserve to win?", and to respond to his definition of deserving. The definition is spot on, I don't disagree with it. However, considering King Kong won simply because of flaws made by the movie makers, I wouldn't say Kong is deserving of such a victory. I know you don't want to hear the Hollywood reason alone, so I will give you another reason. In the film Kong (along with the fierce enemies he battles) falls down a high cliff. All of the the fighters get caught in vines, perhaps escaping death. This event perhaps shaped the tide of the battle somewhat, and was certainly not planned by Kong.

"2nd) 'However, I still do not believe King Kong was deserving because he was pupated along by a script filled with too many scientific flaws to count.' He now brings up why King Kong didn't deserve to win. Now he says that he didn't deserve to win because he was puppet-ed around. Again, he is not taking into account what happened, he's avoiding this part, and ONLY arguing based on the fact that Kong was the main character."

Again, that is the only reason he did win, because of what is dictated by the film makers and previous films the 2005 version is based off of. What happened in the film was dictated, and the actions of the characters were dictated by the same thing. I didn't avoid what happened in the movie, in fact I criticise the very scene.

"I'd like to point out that just because you are the main character does not mean you have to win every single fight you are faced in. There are many examples in which the main character does not win all the fights he does, therefore this should not be a turning point for this debate."

Unfortunately in this movie this is not the case. The movie is based off of the original 1933 film, where King Kong was able to beat one T-Rex. The battle in the 1933 version was longer and more realistic in my opinion, but that's beside the point. The point is, the battle that took place in the 2005 version was more cheesy and unrealistic, however, we already discussed this and came to a neutral stance on it.

"My opponent agrees with my point now, by saying that the odds do not impede you to be deserving of a victory. By saying this, he has just backfired on his points, since all has stated is that the odds were against King Kong (he said that since it was 2v1, King Kong didn't deserve to win, therefore this quote backfires on him) He brought up an example of him vs. chuck Norris. For all we know, he could've beat Chuck Norris, you never know. As I stated before, not only does skill win you a fight, so does wit."

I never disagreed with you about odds impeding on any victory, and the odds were clearly against King Kong. As stated a million times before Kong only won because he was supposed to, which is basically cheating. Therefore, Kong shouldn't be considered deserving of such a title (which I was basically trying to point out in my Chuck Norris comparison).

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, it was fun and challenging, I love him, and it has been honor being his first contender. I praise his conduct and his logical replies to my challenge, an obvious individual deserving of this win... However, I w contradict myself by asking the readers to vote for Pleco.
Radicalguy44

Pro

I must say, I was expecting an easier debate over this topic, but that is something that I did not get. Thanks joshpleco! This has been a good debate ;)

"The definition is spot on, I don't disagree with it. However, considering King Kong won simply because of flaws made by the movie makers, I wouldn't say Kong is deserving of such a victory. I know you don't want to hear the Hollywood reason alone, so I will give you another reason. In the film Kong (along with the fierce enemies he battles) falls down a high cliff. All of the the fighters get caught in vines, perhaps escaping death. This event perhaps shaped the tide of the battle somewhat, and was certainly not planned by Kong."

I understand that my opponent said that his opponents fell down vines. But I unfortunately fail to see how this relates. Kong did NOT fall down into the abyss. He was, (As my opponent said) saved by the vines. This is perfectly possible to do, depending on the strength of the vines. Since the vines were quite strong, it is perfectly possible for this have happened, and not violating rules of physics.

2) My opponent says once more (as he has done before), that the film script did not make Kong worthy of victory. Again, like I have said many times, we also need to look at the skill that both animals/creatures have. King Kong has advantages beyond the V-Rex, as my opponent has agreed with in his previous attacks. Therefore, it's not just because of the script that Kong won, but because of his skill, and wit.

3) "Unfortunately in this movie this is not the case. The movie is based off of the original 1933 film, where King Kong was able to beat one T-Rex. The battle in the 1933 version was longer and more realistic in my opinion, but that's beside the point. The point is, the battle that took place in the 2005 version was more cheesy and unrealistic, however, we already discussed this and came to a neutral stance on it."

There were actually cases in which King Kong did not win. For example, when he got shot by the people. This is a clear example of how Kong did not win every match, and that stars don't necessarily need to win every fight.

4) "I never disagreed with you about odds impeding on any victory, and the odds were clearly against King Kong. As stated a million times before Kong only won because he was supposed to, which is basically cheating. Therefore, Kong shouldn't be considered deserving of such a title (which I was basically trying to point out in my Chuck Norris comparison)."

As I stated in my previous attack, King Kong didn't need to win that fight. After all, it didn't shape towards the movie, win or loose, it didn't matter since it wasn't a major fight. A major fight was when he was on top of the building, and he unfortunately got shot. He was supposed to win this one, wasn't he? Yes he was, but unfortunately he didn't win this, proving my point; Kong did NOT have to win every single match in order to be the star

This was a great debate, and I would like to thank my opponent for debating it, and creating the topic. In conclusion, Kong was deserving of the victory, because of his superiority, and because he was dominating the whole match. Thanks for reading all this guys!

~Radicalguy44
Please vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rogaltron 6 years ago
rogaltron
I recently found this debate, and I'd just like to put in some input, though this perhaps goes against the 'debate' structure.

In this fight, it is entirely logical that King Kong comes out the winner.

The primary reason for this is that whilst V-Rex is based on real animals (i.e. based on animals which were of a similar size and morphology), King Kong is a gorilla whose size is multiplied enormously. For the V-Rex, you have to apply the rules thus which would apply to such an animal. The truth is that almost 90 percent of the crashes and falls that each V-Rex takes would kill it. T-Rex was not built to take such physical abuse. The phrase 'big tree falls hard' obviously is based on psychics, and with the body structure of T-Rex (and indeed V-Rex for that matter), it would not take much (respectively) to break and ankle, leg bone, rib bone (s), back or any bone for that matter. T-Rex was not built for such encounters, it was a highly specialised predator, and if it came up against an animal such as King Kong it would have ran away. V-Rex's body plan is far too similar to that of T-Rex to be seen in a different light.

King Kong is based on a Gorilla-a large, powerful primate, but also one which lives in a semi arboreal setting; and its much more generalised body plan allows it to take more physical abuse than the dinosaur. Of course it is ridiculous that an animals such as King Kong could exist, but if you replicate strength along the same lines as size when you make King Kong from a gorilla, then you have an extraordinarily powerful animal-if you look at the video, look at the size of King Kong's upper body, his arms and chest are immensely powerful, and he is better suited to tackling creatures such as T-Rex.

I recognise my arguments are not fluid and that I perhaps could have explained them much better. Ultimately however, the reasoning in my arguments is correct.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Nope, you can only be winning; you can never win. :)
Posted by Radicalguy44 7 years ago
Radicalguy44
allright guys, with my last argument I conclude the debate. Thanks to pleco for participating, he was a great opponent.

Pardon me, but I'm new. It says the voting period doesn't end, does this mean we won't ever get a winner?

~Rad
Posted by bored123456 7 years ago
bored123456
i think aff is winnin, what do u guyz think?
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
No, the KFC spam will not stop.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Ya doing fine. :P A lot worse first time debaters. :)
Posted by Radicalguy44 7 years ago
Radicalguy44
so.. how do u think it's going? good? boring? bad?
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
So you are done with KFC spam then? :P
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
King Kong FTW!!!

I think from now on I will avoid 5 round debates, I hate repeating myself.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
5 rounds is overdone though. :P
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by stheodho 6 years ago
stheodho
joshpleco23Radicalguy44Tied
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 Antonio12 7 years ago
Antonio12
joshpleco23Radicalguy44Tied
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 Radicalguy44 7 years ago
Radicalguy44
joshpleco23Radicalguy44Tied
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 SirColton 7 years ago
SirColton
joshpleco23Radicalguy44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
joshpleco23Radicalguy44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 billbobjoesmithjr23 7 years ago
billbobjoesmithjr23
joshpleco23Radicalguy44Tied
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