The Instigator
launilove
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
wweasel
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Marijuana Is a Medicine

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
launilove
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,603 times Debate No: 13535
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (42)
Votes (8)

 

launilove

Pro

A powerful medicine
Marijuana contains an amazing chemical, beta-caryophyllene, and scientists have thoroughly proven that it can be used to treat pain, inflammation, atherosclerosis, and osteoporosis.
J�rg Gertsch, of ETH Z�rich, and his collaborators from three other universities learned that the natural molecule can activate a protein called cannabinoid receptor type 2. When that biological button is pushed, it soothes the immune system, increases bone mass, and blocks pain signals — without causing euphoria or interfering with the central nervous system. Gertsch and his team published their findings on June 23 of 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.They focused on the anti-inflammatory properties of the impressive substance — testing it on immune cells called monocytes and also in mice.
Investigators at London's Kings College reported that the administration of doses of synthetic THC temporarily interfered with activity in the inferior frontal cortex, a region of the brain associated with paranoia, while administration of the non-psychoactive compound cannanabanoid(CBD) stimulated relaxation. The reports go on to suggest that chronic use of cannabis may precipitate various types of mental illness and cite a separate unpublished study indicating that cannabis use may exacerbate symptoms of schizophrenia.
Such clinical findings and suggestions are not new. Scientists have known for decades that THC is psychoactive and that peak blood levels of its primary active metabolite 11-OH-THC are occasionally associated with temporary feelings of dysphoria, paranoia, and even panic attacks. (These events, when documented, typically occur in cannabis na�ve users.)
Conversely, scientists have also been long aware of CBD's anxiolytic and anti-psychotic effects. In fact, many experts speculate that it is the lack of CBD in Marinol (the synthetic THC oral prescription pill) that is responsible for the drug's enhanced psychoactivity. By contrast, CBD occurs naturally in whole-plant cannabis, and is believed to modify and/or diminish some of the psychoactivity associated with THC when cannabis is inhaled.
Fears that chronic cannabis use may be positively associated with various mental illnesses, particularly schizophrenia, are also long-standing. However, a recent meta-analysis investigating the use of cannabis use and its impact on mental health reported that those who use cannabis in moderation, even long-term "will not suffer any lasting physical or mental harm. ... Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated to be a relatively safe drug. (Leslie Iverson. 2005. Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis. Current Opinion in Pharmacology 5: 69-72.)
The phrase "relatively safe" is appropriate in any discussion regarding cannabis and mental health. No substance is harmless and in many cases, the relative dangers of a drug may be increased or decreased depending on set and setting. Cannabis is no different.
There is limited data suggesting an association, albiet a minor one, between chronic cannabis (primarily among adolescents and/or those predisposed to mental illness) and increased symptoms of depression, psychotic symptoms, and/or schizophrenia. However, interpretation of this data is troublesome and, to date, this observation association is not well understood. Identified as well as unidentified confounding factors (such as poverty, family history, polydrug use, etc.) make it difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to adequately determine whether any cause-and-effect relationship exists between cannabis use and mental illness. Also, many experts point out that this association may be due to patients' self-medicating with cannabis, as survey data and anecdotal reports of individuals finding therapeutic relief from both clinical depression and schizotypal behavior are common within medical lore, and clinical testing on the use of cannabinoids to treat certain symptoms of mental illness has been recommended.

Most recently, a large-scale study by investigators at London's Institute of Psychiatry reported that those patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who had previously used cannabis did not demonstrate exacerbated symptoms of the illness compared to age-adjusted controls who had not used cannabis. "This [finding] argues against a distinct schizophrenia-like psychosis caused by cannabis," they concluded.
In 2003, researchers at the University of Milan in Naples, Italy, reported that non-psychoactive compounds in marijuana inhibited the growth of glioma cells in a dose dependent manner and selectively targeted and killed malignant cancer cells.

The following year, researchers reported in the journal of the American Association for Cancer Research that marijuana's constituents inhibited the spread of brain cancer in human tumor biopsies. In a related development, a research team from the University of South Florida further noted that THC can also selectively inhibit the activation and replication of gamma herpes viruses. The viruses, which can lie dormant for years within white blood cells before becoming active and spreading to other cells, are thought to increase one's chances of developing cancers such as Karposis Sarcoma, Burkitts lymphoma, and Hodgkins disease.
Government experts now admit that pot doesn't kill brain cells. This myth came from a handful of animal experiments in which structural changes (not actual cell death, as is often alleged) were observed in brain cells of animals exposed to high doses of pot. Many critics still cite the notorious monkey studies of Dr. Robert G. Heath, which purported to find brain damage in three monkeys that had been heavily dosed with cannabis. This work was never replicated and has since been discredited by a pair of better controlled, much larger monkey studies, one by Dr. William Slikker of the National Center for Toxicological Research and the other by Charles Rebert and Gordon Pryor of SRI International. Neither found any evidence of physical alteration in the brains of monkeys exposed to daily doses of pot for up to a year. Human studies of heavy users in Jamaica and Costa Rica found no evidence of abnormalities in brain physiology. Even though there is no evidence that pot causes permanent brain damage, users should be aware that persistent deficits in short-term memory have been noted in chronic, heavy marijuana smokers after 6 to 12 weeks of abstinence. It is worth noting that other drugs, including alcohol, are known to cause brain damage.
There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined.
As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other "hard" drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine "ice" when Hawaii's marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot. Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.
The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.
Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal danger to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be l
wweasel

Con

Hello, this is my first debate on here. I am a Policy (CX) debater, so bear with me here.
To start out, I would like to point this out:

On Friday, Obama drug czar Gil Kerlikowske spoke out again in opposition to Proposition 19, this time on a trip to Florida:
[Kerlikowske] mocked the claim from proponents of Proposition 19 that legalization "solves every problem ... It's touted as some type of answer. Legalizing drugs is not the answer to this nation's problems."
But what about medical marijuana, especially as a treatment for chronic pain that harsh narcotics like Oxycodone are used to treat? Sorry, Cheech:
"Marijuana is not medicine," Kerlikowske told New Times. "We have a process in this country for developing medicines that's world-renowned. The popular vote has never been a part of it. Treatments should be determined by scientists and not by voters."
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is also touting a new "fact sheet" on its website about the horrors that marijuana legalization would reap.

Second, I define your term "medicine" as:

1: a substance or preparation used in treating disease

2:
a : the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease
b : the branch of medicine concerned with the non surgical treatment of disease

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Right off the bat, we can see that marijuana is not a science and/or art etc.
So let's focus on definition one.
Using the definition, let's examine your resolution.
Marijuana is a substance or preparation in treating disease.
After researching marijuana, I have found that there is no true disease that it treats.
I define "disease" as the following:

an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions.

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Again, after researching marijuana I have found that it does not treat any impairment whereas the vital organs are affected.
I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
launilove

Pro

"Marijuana is not medicine," Kerlikowske told New Times. "We have a process in this country for developing medicines that's world-renowned. The popular vote has never been a part of it. Treatments should be determined by scientists and not by voters."

Scientists have determined that marijuana is a treatment for many things. Scientists are the ones who conducted the studies referred to in my opening argument.

Another example is its use in HIV/AIDS cases:

"Many people with HIV have low appetite. This can be due to fatigue or drug side effects. Low appetite can lead to AIDS wasting. Marijuana stimulates the appetite, preventing these problems.

Some people with HIV get nauseated when they take antiretroviral medications. This can make it difficult to take all scheduled doses. Marijuana can help control the nausea."

I personally know and there are many documented cases of HIV/AIDS patients lives being saved because of wait gain after beginning the use of marijuana.

The weight gain from the 'munchies' allows the users body to essentially rebuild the immune system, especially if the persons diet is consistent with recommendations from there doctor. (No junk food)

...
"Second, I define your term "medicine" as:

1: a substance or preparation used in treating disease

2:
a : the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease
b : the branch of medicine concerned with the non surgical treatment of disease"

The point of the 1 and 2 in the dictionary is that they are distinct meanings...

Example:

Definition of AMBER

1
: a hard yellowish to brownish translucent fossil resin that takes a fine polish and is used chiefly in making ornamental objects (as beads)
2
: a variable color averaging a dark orange yellow

Both one and two do not have to apply for it to be considered amber.

Marijuana is a substance, it exists.

The process we have in this country for producing medicine is 'I invented this so for ten years I will get loads of money for it' If someone can grow their medicine in there backyard, who will pay the lobbyists? Again marijuana has been determined as a treatment by scientists for many things. Why else would they work so hard to invent Marinol? And why isnt Marinol banned..? What are the side affects of Marinol?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

weakness
sudden warm feeling
stomach pain
nausea
vomiting
memory loss
anxiety
confusion
dizziness
unsteady walking
feeling like you are outside of your body
elevated mood (Sounds like 'high' to me)
hallucinations (seeing things or hearing voices that do not exist)
sleepiness
strange or unusual thoughts

These are exactly the same effects as marijuana.

Marinol is derived from a substance in Marijuana. Marinol is a pill; a pharmecutical version of Marijuana allowed by the FDA. Marijuana has the substance Dronabinol (a cannabanoid, derived from the word Cannabis, a synonym for Marijuana) naturally present in it, which is the SCIENTIFIC cause behinds Canibinols effects.

So the government and regulatory bodies admit, through allowing Marinol, that Dronabinol is beneficial in the treatment of nausea. Dronabinol is naturally found in Marijuana, and no other place.

So Marijuana is, via circular reasoning, a beneficial treatment when it comes to nausea.
So Marijuana is a medicine.

You stated
"I define "disease" as the following:

an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions."

The key word is OR, both apply separately.

So a disease is- in other words:
An impairment of the normal state of the living animals
body
OR
the performance of the vital functions

I would consider nausea an impairment of the normal state of living. Alzheimer's too. I would consider epilepsy an EXTREME physical impairment, this is an example of a grassroots women who uses Cannabis exclusively after trying modern medicine.

Her seizures on modern medicine totaled 66 in one year, on Marijuana, just 9.

Watch till the end and you will understand what kind of impairment a grand mal seizure is, though some disagree.
A quick google search will show how extremely beneficial Marijuana is to epilepsy patients.

The Drug Czar has a vested interest in the continuance of Marijuana prohibition, and is a bad source to cite when it comes to a scientific opinion?
wweasel

Con

The key word is OR, both apply separately.

So a disease is- in other words:
An impairment of the normal state of the living animals
body
OR
the performance of the vital functions

You misunderstand.
an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions.
it is saying that a disease must be an impairment of the normal state of the living animal, plant body, or one of its parts THAT interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions.

*****************************************************

The point of the 1 and 2 in the dictionary is that they are distinct meanings...

My opponent did not read my argument, where I clearly stated that
"Right off the bat, we can see that marijuana is not a science and/or art etc.
So let's focus on definition one."
The key is where I stated "let's focus on definition one."
I never said that it had to meet both definition one AND two.

"So Marijuana is, via circular reasoning, a beneficial treatment when it comes to nausea.
So Marijuana is a medicine."

I would like to point out that my opponent did not take into account the definition of medicine and disease.
Nausea does not interrupt or modify the performance of vital functions.

I define "nausea" as the following:

a stomach distress with distaste for food and an urge to vomit.

Source:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

A distaste for food and an urge to vomit does not interrupt or modify the vital functions.

"Marinol is derived from a substance in Marijuana. Marinol is a pill; a pharmecutical version of Marijuana allowed by the FDA. Marijuana has the substance Dronabinol (a cannabanoid, derived from the word Cannabis, a synonym for Marijuana) naturally present in it, which is the SCIENTIFIC cause behinds Canibinols effects.

So the government and regulatory bodies admit, through allowing Marinol, that Dronabinol is beneficial in the treatment of nausea. Dronabinol is naturally found in Marijuana, and no other place."

My opponent just, in these statements, conceded that in fact Marijuana is not a medicine, but Marinol.

"I would consider nausea an impairment of the normal state of living. Alzheimer's too. I would consider epilepsy an EXTREME physical impairment, this is an example of a grassroots women who uses Cannabis exclusively after trying modern medicine."

I will concede my opponent's arguments that they are impairments; however, according to the definition, they must be that AND interrupt or modify the vital functions.
I would like to point out that none of what he listed interrupts or modifies the VITAL FUNCTIONS.
Therefore, they are not diseases, and marijuana cannot qualify as a medicine.

Lastly, I would like to point out that my opponent has made numerous errors in grammar and/or spelling.
I look forward to the next round.
VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 2
launilove

Pro

----"So the government and regulatory bodies admit, through allowing Marinol, that Dronabinol is beneficial in the treatment of nausea. Dronabinol is naturally found in Marijuana, and no other place."

"My opponent just, in these statements, conceded that in fact Marijuana is not a medicine, but Marinol."

Contrary to the opinion of my opponent, I pointed out that the active ingredient in Marinol is in fact FOUND in Marijuana, therefore making it a medicine; backed by the fact that the FDA has endorsed the use of Marinol. (Marinols active ingredient is a cannabanoid, discovered within the cannabis/marijuana plant)

Resolved: Because Marijuana has the cannabanoid present in Marinol, and Marinol is an accepted medicine, it stands to reason that marijuana is, and should legally be worldwide, (regardless of what some wish to believe in superstition) a medicine.
wweasel

Con

"Contrary to the opinion of my opponent, I pointed out that the active ingredient in Marinol is in fact FOUND in Marijuana, therefore making it a medicine"
No, that does not make Marijuana a medicine. For example, let's say that a substance is made up of irrelevant materials and glucose. Glucose is a sugar, but that does not make the substance a sugar.

Also, I would like to point out that my opponent dropped my arguments about Marijuana and diseases.

My opponent's arguments are poorly planned and lack good reasoning.
My arguments, however, have gotten across a strong point and have created strong and contradictory arguments.
Therefore, I urge you to VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 3
launilove

Pro

I did not address the argument presented by my opponent in some places of his dysection of my apparent 'lack' of understanding of how to read a dictionary, because I believed he restated what I had already rebutted, just with different wording.

Meaning that his argument was invalidated by simple rewording of my previously stated argument.
Especially his argument regarding disease.

Run on sentences are not necessarily bad grammar.

I fail to see any argument supporting the assertion that Marijuana is not a medicine. Especially because the side effects of Marijuana pale in comparison to many accepted prescription medications; as I'm sure the reader is themself is aware of.

I assure you that if there are any errors in my grammar and syntax they are purely regional in nature- meaning my understanding of certain transition words is different because of the difference in our geographic location. I do not believe that incorrectly interpreting basic syntax, (which according to my opponent I am guilty of) is a successful contradictory argument.

The points I attempted to get across several times were, in fact:

1. Merinol is an accepted medicine
2. The side effects of Marijuana are exactly the same as those associated with Marinol
3. The active ingredient in Merinol is Dronabinol.
4. Dronabinol is a Cannabanoid.
5. If not for the Cannabis/Marijuana plant, Dronanibinol ( a CANNabanoid) would not exist and would not have been discovered
6. Dronanibinol is also an active ingredient in CANNabis, where it is derived from
7. Because Cannabis contains Dronanibinol, it must to some degree provide the accepted MEDICAL relief from nausea that DISEASES like HIV/AIDS cause
8. Therefore Marijuana is a medicine.

Governments have purposely diluted the historical significance of Hemp and of Cannabis, especially ganjas use as a medicine.

By voting for the PRO side of the argument, you are voting for an argument sound in reason, and asserting that Marijuana/Cannabis/Canabinoids/Dronanibinol/Marinol IS a medicine.
wweasel

Con

I would first like to get the spelling and grammar over with by saying that my opponent clearly is not well educated on his subject because my opponent misspelled "Marinol" TWICE in his last argument.
"1. Merinol is an accepted medicine
2. The side effects of Marijuana are exactly the same as those associated with Marinol
3. The active ingredient in Merinol is Dronabinol.
4. Dronabinol is a Cannabanoid.
5. If not for the Cannabis/Marijuana plant, Dronanibinol ( a CANNabanoid) would not exist and would not have been discovered
6. Dronanibinol is also an active ingredient in CANNabis, where it is derived from
7. Because Cannabis contains Dronanibinol, it must to some degree provide the accepted MEDICAL relief from nausea that DISEASES like HIV/AIDS cause
8. Therefore Marijuana is a medicine."

My opponent's entire argument revolves around the wrong idea that Marinol is Marijuana.
Let the symbol /=/ be "is not equal to."
Marinol /=/ Marijuana
Marinol = a medicine *(he has proven this himself quite well)*
Therefore, Marijuana is not a medicine.

"By voting for the PRO side of the argument, you are voting for an argument sound in reason, and asserting that Marijuana/Cannabis/Canabinoids/Dronanibinol/Marinol IS a medicine."

Wrong, sir. Marijuana is entirely different that Marijuana.
I extend my round 3 argument, which said:

" 'Contrary to the opinion of my opponent, I pointed out that the active ingredient in Marinol is in fact FOUND in Marijuana, therefore making it a medicine'
No, that does not make Marijuana a medicine. For example, let's say that a substance is made up of irrelevant materials and glucose. Glucose is a sugar, but that does not make the substance a sugar."

Marijuana is not a medicine. My opponent has never given a good answer to any of my arguments. Also, being the Pro/Affirmative, my opponent has the burden of proof. I would like to point out that my opponent has not shown the burden of proof. Therefore, I strongly urge you to VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 4
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by launilove 6 years ago
launilove
That is a complete lie. I voted for all me-EXCEPT for spelling and grammar which I gave to you which, in my opinion, is correct, IT IS MY VOTE.
I never said I didn't vote for myself.

In my mind, by my judgement, for my vote- I chose who I thought DESERVED the points. Just like with your first vote, it was all TIE, and spelling and grammar to you.
When I cast my vote I gave you spelling and grammar, and the other points to me... because in my opinion I earned the point? Is it wrong for me to vote for myself? Obviously not, you voted for yourself, besides the all ties. So I was expected to give spelling and grammar to you and put ties on all other counts, rather than voting how I saw fit.

I believe my argument to be much more successful, and my conduct to be much more professional. Your spelling and grammar was superior to mine.

In the comments I was pointing out your REACTION to my vote, (by changing your vote), not the fact that you voted for yourself. If you would have ORIGINALLY put all points to you, that would have been perfectly legitimate.

But by reacting to my vote by changing your vote, you were demonstrating a lack of professionalism, something I wanted pointed out to all who go to vote on this topic- that you don't deserve that professionalism point. Hence my comments after YOU CHANGED YOUR VOTE IN REACTION TO MINE.
Posted by wweasel 6 years ago
wweasel
First of all, you voted all you first. I then voted all me to even it out. Then I left for a couple hours and when I come back, you've changed everything to make it loo like I did something.
Posted by launilove 6 years ago
launilove
? Why do you keep reasserting I should put my vote to a tie? My argument, as reviewed below, is that WHEN YOU SAW MY OPINION, YOU CHANGED YOUR VOTE TO ALL FOR YOU, and when I called you on it, you changed your vote to tied. I explained- why would I got beyond altering back to my original vote? And I gave you an extra point for conduct, which you deserved in my opinion because I thought I was overemphasizing the fact that my vote is voted the way I believe either party earned that point! So what should I do?

What would you do? Dont give me bs and say after all you can read below that we exchanged, you seriously expect me to change my vote to tied? for what the sake of fairness? Fair is my voting how I see fit.

Not fair is when my opponent sees my vote and decides' hell im voting all for myself' even though previously you voted tied. So whats my point? Based on rereading the argument, I voted my opinion. Whereas you retaliated in a manor that is inconsistent with normal conduct.
Posted by launilove 6 years ago
launilove
My vote is my opinion.

I can change my vote back to what it was originally. Like I said below, you surely earned the point on grammar and spelling, however, my vote was cast to who earned the points. It is unusual to me that the site lets you vote on your own debate, but alas.

as I stated before, and Im sure he read, I voted, when I cast my vote, for who I thought the points should go to, my opponent didnt like my choices. He reacted like a child and changed his vote in respons to mine. initially he voted for me, a tie on all count except for grammar wich he gave to himself. On my first vote I voted for me on all counts (which is my opinion, its my vote, I agreed with me before the debate and I feel my conduct, argument, and sources, were superior to my opponents) except for spelling and grammar, which I gave to my opponent...? So what did he expect? I would vote tie on everything and then give him grammar and spelling ???? then he would initially be ahead?

Your argument doesn't make sense to me.
I voted my opinion on all counts, and then, because you didn't like my opinion, you changed your vote in response to mine.

Then I changed the point I gave to you to me, because of the obvious misconduct on your part.

??? So you took my argument in a previous comment and used it against me...

another thing I dont get.

Oh well.

You dont think im going to notice your trying to slander me to get votes?
Posted by wweasel 6 years ago
wweasel
Wow, launilove, please stop voting for yourself. Put all the checks on "tied" like I did.
Posted by launilove 6 years ago
launilove
ya I know i got it, he earned an extra conduct point
Posted by Mac 6 years ago
Mac
@launilove: Yeah, you can change your vote, just re-vote and it'll be changed.
Posted by launilove 6 years ago
launilove
??

I can change my vote back to what it was originally. Like I said below, you surely earned the point on grammar and spelling, however, my vote was cast to who earned the points. It is unusual to me that the site lets you vote on your own debate, but alas.
Posted by wweasel 6 years ago
wweasel
Okay launilove, let's both put all ties.
Posted by launilove 6 years ago
launilove
as I stated before, and Im sure he read, I voted, when I cast my vote, for who I thought the points should go to, my opponent didnt like my choices. He reacted like a child and changed his vote in respons to mine. initially he voted for me, a tie on all count except for grammar wich he gave to himself. On my first vote I voted for me on all counts (which is my opinion, its my vote, I agreed with me before the debate and I feel my conduct, argument, and sources, were superior to my opponents) except for spelling and grammar, which I gave to my opponent...? So what did he expect? I would vote tie on everything and then give him grammar and spelling ???? then he would initially be ahead?

Your argument doesn't make sense to me.
I voted my opinion on all counts, and then, because you didn't like my opinion, you changed your vote in response to mine.

Then I changed the point I gave to you to me, because of the obvious misconduct on your part.

??? So you took my argument in a previous comment and used it against me...

another thing I dont get.

Oh well.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by wweasel 6 years ago
wweasel
launilovewweaselTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by launilove 6 years ago
launilove
launilovewweaselTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by TheSquadBoss 6 years ago
TheSquadBoss
launilovewweaselTied
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 sydnerella 6 years ago
sydnerella
launilovewweaselTied
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 CarmenAnu 6 years ago
CarmenAnu
launilovewweaselTied
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 devman 6 years ago
devman
launilovewweaselTied
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 Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
launilovewweaselTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by darkhearth 6 years ago
darkhearth
launilovewweaselTied
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:43