The Instigator
AntiPatriot
Pro (for)
Winning
45 Points
The Contender
righty10294
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points

Marijuana is not addictive or harmful.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 1/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,865 times Debate No: 1891
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (21)

 

AntiPatriot

Pro

I don't care what you were taught in health class or learned in D.A.R.E.--marijuana is not addictive.

The public school system is a product of the government. Do you honestly think that they will teach people things that would cause people to question its own laws? Millions of people are taught that marijuana is a horrible drug that causes dementia and paranoia. And millions of people believe it. People are taught that if you take one breath in of cannabis smoke, you are doing more harm than if you were to smoke a pack of cigarettes (this was said by a health teacher at my school). These claims are obviously erroneous and propagandist. The movie "Reefer Madness" just goes to show how far people will go to convince you of falsehoods.

Smoking cannabis can be damaging to the lungs, but, contrary to popular belief, marijuana has never been cited in a study as the sole cause of any type of cancer. All participants in studies that claim to prove marijuana is carcinogenic were also tobacco smokers. Also contrary to widespread belief, marijuana has never caused the death of any person. Marijuana is minimally harmful to its users (and even less harmful when consumed using vaporizers or water filtration) and absolutely harmless to those who don't use it.

So why do people continue to believe otherwise? Because that's what they've been taught since elementary school. I remember in 4th grade we had the police and D.A.R.E. representatives come in and tell us how if we smoked one joint, we would never be the same.

Ignorance is only being perpetuated by our schools and government and the truth needs to be heard.
righty10294

Con

Hello,

First off, I'm disgusted with your picture, and do you support flag burning (something wrong because I can't see your stances)

Alright, Marijuana is addicting. If you are a regular user, you can become addictive to it. People will contuenisly smoke it, because they will become dependent on it. It will relax them when they are stresses. Infact, when they're stressed, they will rely on it.

The health problems of marijuana. When someone smokes marijuana, they will be smoking more tar than what's in a cigarette. This tar goes down into your lungs, esophices, etc. and ill it. That's how most people get lung cancer. Other effects of marijuana-

-decreases energy
-decreases concentration
-it will mess up the reproductive system in both males and females

If you smoke it while your pregnant, just imagine what that could do.

Check out this photo of the effects of marijuana-
http://images.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
AntiPatriot

Pro

righty10294: "First off, I'm disgusted with your picture, and do you support flag burning (something wrong because I can't see your stances)"

Well I hope your disgust in my picture doesn't cause you to have a problem with exhibiting a good, respectful, open-minded debate. I could equally find YOUR picture disgusting, but I choose to set aside all prejudices and argue logically. No I don't "support" the burning of the flag, per se. I don't think it should be illegal. Burning a flag is honestly not that big of a deal. The flag is just a piece of cloth that looks like something you recognize and assign meaning to--nothing more. The flag has no soul--it is just a SYMBOL. Why are we idolizing SYMBOLS? Isn't that a sin? Applying flame to a piece of cloth should not be illegal. What if my avatar was the burning of the Iraqi flag... would you be disgusted then? That would be acceptable no? Oh wait, we're not at WAR with Iraq--it's just an occupation! I'm glad we're not enemies then. (This is another debate topic entirely. I apologize for straying.)

right10294: "Alright, Marijuana is addicting. If you are a regular user, you can become addictive to it. People will contuenisly smoke it, because they will become dependent on it. It will relax them when they are stresses. Infact, when they're stressed, they will rely on it."

I will excuse your grammar because I think I can make out what you are trying to say. (If I misquote you, please let me know.)
"If you are a regular user, you can become [addicted] to [marijuana]"--So at some point a person changes from being "a regular user" to an "addict". Is he an addict because he uses regularly? Or does he just use regularly because it makes him feel good?

"People will contuenisly smoke it, because they will become dependent on it."
Well, yes if people DID become dependent on it, they would smoke it continuously. But smoking it continuously does not consequently mean that they are dependent on it. Smoke cannabis has these side-effects: Hunger and happiness. People smoke it "contuenisly" because they like to do so. Does that have any affect on what you do? No. So why do you care? It makes the user happy--and that is the side effect. "Drug related crimes" occur so often BECAUSE drugs are illegal. Making something illegal raises the stakes of everything, so people are forced to do things in secret and it's almost necessary for drug dealers to carry a gun because of the nature of a black market--it's dangerous. If drugs were legalized, there wouldn't be henchmen hustlin' their dealers for cash and pluggin' 'em with some slugs if they don't got the dough. Anyone who wanted the effects of marijuana would simply have to go to the store (similar to a liquor/smoke shop) and pick up an inhaler of completely non-carcinogenic THC--just bypass all the dangers of the black market. No need for guns or violence anymore because it's not illegal. The problem isn't DRUGS. The problem IS that DRUGS are ILLEGAL.

righty10294: "The health problems of marijuana. When someone smokes marijuana, they will be smoking more tar than what's in a cigarette. This tar goes down into your lungs, esophices, etc. and ill it. That's how most people get lung cancer."

Like I said: If marijuana was legal, the mass-marketed way to sell it would be in inhalers--because it is 100% non-carcinogenic. Yes, cannabis does have some tar, but even if people still want to buy plants and seeds--it is THEIR choice. If someone smokes one joint in his room, and you NEVER come in to contact with him--why do you even CARE what he does in his free time? It DOESN'T affect you! Just because drugs might go against YOUR moral code, someone else's moral codes are simply different. Do you really need to enforce your beliefs on to others? Isn't that the definition of religious oppression? Different is NOT always bad. And just because you THINK your way is the only way, doesn't mean you have the right to tell me how to live my life.

righty10294: "Other effects of marijuana-

-decreases energy
-decreases concentration
-it will mess up the reproductive system in both males and females"

Have you ever smoked marijuana? Do you know EXACTLY how it makes you feel? Do you think the government has smoked marijuana? If you say yes, then they are breaking their own law. If you say no, then they have NO idea of knowing exactly how it makes the user feel. The only way to KNOW how something feels is to use it yourself. And unless you have, don't say stuff like "decreases concentration and energy". Maybe happy people aren't just as uptight as the average Westerner is. And that was a very wonderful link you sent me to.

"Check out this photo of the effects of marijuana-
http://images.google.com...;

This looks like something I would see hanging up in my health class. What a great place to get objective information: the classroom of a prohibitionist-government-funded classroom. "Sleepy eyes" is a SYMPTOM? Are they just making things up now to fill up space? So, I shouldn't smoke marijuana because it gives me "sleepy eyes"? God FORBID I have "sleepy eyes"! And as I said earlier--THC and cannabanoids are NOT carcinogenic. THC is one of like 400 compounds you consume when you smoke marijuana crudely. There ARE ways to isolate the THC and minimize/eliminate ANYTHING that would be considered cancer-causing. Also, "Reduces motivation"? Where do they get this crap? I dare you to smoke a J and tell me how you feel afterwards.

Oh... and if you just want to IMAGINE what could happen if a pregnant woman was smoking cannabis... please don't read this study:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
righty10294

Con

Hello

I'm just going to skip the flag thing, because it's irrelevant. Shall we debate the topic that the burning the flag should be illegal.

"Is he an addict because he uses regularly? Or does he just use regularly because it makes him feel good?"

Does it make a difference. If he smokes regularly, it will make him "feel good". It makes him "feel good" because it's like a cigarette, it will lower your stress, but it couldn't do any worse for your body. Also, it makes your energy level really low, so while they're high, they probably won't do anything.

Your second argument is irrelevant, because you say people are dependent on it (that helps me), because it's illegal. Well, it was illegal when they started. Then everything else is irrelevant, so I can't make a case for it unless you explain why it's relevant.

Why shouldn't we let a person that I don't know smoke 1 time? Because it's illegal. I don't see how that isn't that clear. Lets compare it to killing someone (by smoking, your killing yourself). You kill someone that was homeless, no one knew about, nor cared about. Should that person be left off easy, because no one knew him? A murder is a murder. Smoking is smoking, there is no good way, because it is all illegal. And "just one" is like saying I could quit anytime, but then when you try to go quit, you can't.

Have you ever smoked marijuana?- No, it's illegal and I would be killing my self.

Do you know EXACTLY how it makes you feel?- Yes, we've learned about it for the last 3 years. Also, we had 3 presentations done by cops who tell us what the effects are.

Do you think the government has smoked marijuana?- That is a false statement. Who is the government.

That paragraph is strange. You make it sound that you've broken the law and smoked it. But when you smoke it, you get high and it effects your brain, nervous system, etc. So, you really don't know how it makes you feel.

ABout the article of the Jamaican women. HOw can really use it as an argument? The study was conducted 15 years ago, and on only 23 women. How can you decided how it effects you when you only testes 23 pregnant parents who smoke?
Debate Round No. 2
AntiPatriot

Pro

righty: "Does it make a difference. If he smokes regularly, it will make him "feel good". It makes him "feel good" because it's like a cigarette, it will lower your stress, but it couldn't do any worse for your body. Also, it makes your energy level really low, so while they're high, they probably won't do anything."

I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say. You say if he smokes it regularly it will make him feel good--I think that is an argument for my side. Then you say it makes him feel good because it's like a cigarette, it lowers stress. So you're saying that the only reason marijuana makes someone feel good is because it lowers stress? That is a totally false statement. I've smoked before and it is nothing like they teach you in health class. It's not like you can't understand whats going on and all you feel is "low stress" and you just want to curl up in a corner and do nothing with your life. It's NOTHING like that. The effects aren't even that dramatic. And no, it DOESN'T make your energy really low. I personally have ran 12 miles having smoked marijuana beforehand. I'm not even kidding--TWELVE MILES! Can you even do that when you're not high? And you're telling me that if I am high, I "probably won't do anything"?

righty: "Your second argument is irrelevant, because you say people are dependent on it (that helps me), because it's illegal."

I don't think you are following the logic of my argument. Instead of just skimming through the words, I think you should take some time to actually understand what I am saying. I assume you are referring to this statement I made in the second round:
"Well, yes if people DID become dependent on it, they would smoke it continuously. But smoking it continuously does not consequently mean that they are dependent on it."
Like I said (for some reason I feel like I'm repeating myself), just because you smoke weed daily, DOES NOT mean that you are dependent on it. Just because someone gets on the computer daily, are they dependent on it? No, they simply like getting on the computer on a regular basis. And I never said that "people are dependent on it, because it's illegal" which is what you claim I said. Again, if you would just READ the words that I write, you might actually understand what I am trying to say. That argument was a little off topic though, so I won't restate it here. (Though I do implore you to use some hypothetical thought and read that passage again.)

righty: "Why shouldn't we let a person that I don't know smoke 1 time? Because it's illegal. I don't see how that isn't that clear. Lets compare it to killing someone (by smoking, your killing yourself). You kill someone that was homeless, no one knew about, nor cared about. Should that person be left off easy, because no one knew him? A murder is a murder. Smoking is smoking, there is no good way, because it is all illegal."

You have far too much faith in your government my friend. You unconditionally support your government's laws. Even if the laws are based on falsifications and ignorance. At one point in our nation's history, not too long ago, it was completely LEGAL for a white person to OWN someone else with different skin color. Clearly our government has not always had it right, and clearly they never will. Just because something is ILLEGAL doesn't mean that it is inherently bad. If the government told you that you couldn't eat clam chowder on Tuesdays because it's bad for you, would you not eat clam chowder on Tuesdays, simply because Uncle Sam said so? No, because hopefully you know that there is nothing inherently wrong with eating clam chowder on ANY day of the week. I assume by your logic you find yourself completely justified in getting wasted on liquor and then smoking a pack of cigarettes because it's "legal" to do so.

And your whole hobo-murder analogy does not apply here. (I concede that my clam chowder analogy does have some wholes, but none that can't be filled in.) Smoking marijuana is VICTIMLESS. You are not killing anyone else when you smoke. You're not even killing yourself. Your knowledge of drugs is very perverted (And I can't say I blame you because that's what teach you in health). You make it sound like every cannabis hit you take you are lopping years off your life. That is not the true! No one has EVER died from smoking marijuana!!!! EVER!!!!!!! Please find me a study that cites marijuana as a factor in death!!!! Please!!!!! Killing someone else is inherently wrong--applying flame to a naturally growing plant is not inherently wrong. You only think it's wrong because the government say it is. And don't give the whole "drugs are not a victimless crime"--that's bull. Smoking marijuana is victimless. And suppose that it does have some minor negative side-effects. It is the CHOICE of the person who is consuming it to determine whether those negative side-effects are enough to keep them from doing it. Every time the government tells someone they can't do something, they are infringing on their liberty. Some things are so horrible (rape, murder, etc.) that everyone agrees should not be allowed. But smoking comes no where close to those things. Who are you to tell someone that they can't do something to their own bodies? That's like if the government outlawed tattoos because it hurts to get one. It isn't their right to tell me how much pain I can handle--if I want to tolerate the negatives of getting a tattoo, and no one else has to suffer, then it should be MY choice--not the government's.

righty: "And "just one" is like saying I could quit anytime, but then when you try to go quit, you can't."

Wow. I really do feel bad for you because you are being fed lies wherever you learn this stuff. You are ignorant because the government wants you to be ignorant. They say stuff like, "Cocaine is so addicting, no one can do it just once." Cocaine is considered one of the most addicting drugs, and yet I read in my textbook the other day that only 16% of REGULAR USERS over the course of TEN years, displayed signs of actually being "addicted". If only 16% of ten-year-cocaine-users are actually addicted, that means that the other 84% could stop whenever they wanted to. And that is one of the most addicted substances around. Marijuana has not even close to addictive. You are only proving your limited knowledge on the subject when you say things like that.

"Do you know EXACTLY how it makes you feel?- Yes, we've learned about it for the last 3 years. Also, we had 3 presentations done by cops who tell us what the effects are."

Oh ok. So because you've obviously done your own research and gotten your information from unbiased sources with no special interests, I guess you know everything there is to know about drugs.

"Do you think the government has smoked marijuana?- That is a false statement. Who is the government."
That wasn't even a statement--it was a question. Hopefully you won't avoid my question this time. Do you think that the people who do studies for the government have ever actually smoked marijuana? The correct answer is no. Some people say that being high is completely indescribable by words. There are no combinations of letters and punctuation that can explain to you how it feels to be high. So unless you have smoked it, and apparently you haven't, then don't claim to know how it feels. And don't cite sources who don't even know how it feels.

"But when you smoke it, you get high and it effects your brain, nervous system, etc. So, you really don't know how it makes you feel."

Yes that is what being high is--having it affect your brain, nervous system, etc. You can still FEEL and THINK.

In the end, your argument is that marijuana is bad because your health teacher said so. I have attacked your source as unreliable, and you haven't defended it.
righty10294

Con

Hello

I'm sorry for the delay.

"I've smoked before"

What?!?! You say you're from Oregon, that's illeagal. Also, you just admited it on a website that anyone can see. That was a. dumb move.

"I personally have ran 12 miles having smoked marijuana beforehand"

I'm not sure I can beilve that. Sure it might be true, but how much. If you barelly put your lips to it, it wouldn't do anything. I doubt this, and you are just saying it to make your argument look good.

Here is what the effect would be. You smoke 1 stick pipe w/e. It makes your reaction time less and shortens your memory. You decide to drive home, and you think you forgot that you forgot your wallet at the bar. Your wallet is actually in your pocket. When you go to turn around, you can't tell what color the light is, so you just go. A person is walking across the crosswalk. You hve slow reaction time now, so you hit the person. This is all because of you smoking marijuana. It will kill somebody!!!

I wish I could reboot everything, but I have ran out of time.
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ImAPanicBomb447 9 years ago
ImAPanicBomb447
Both sides have mostly terrible arguments. I agree that marijuana is not physically addictive, but it can certainly be harmful. However, the lack of coherent arguments based on sound evidence makes it too difficult to decide who to vote for.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Haha, I lost my faith in humanity a LONG time ago. Nonetheless, this situation is possible, but not what usually happens, of course. One major weakness is his argument, "you can't tell what color the light is, so you just go." This is absolutely illogical. Marijuana use is supposed to suddenly cause you to be color blind...hmmm, an unlikely story.
Posted by AntiPatriot 9 years ago
AntiPatriot
"You smoke 1 stick pipe w/e. It makes your reaction time less and shortens your memory. You decide to drive home, and you think you forgot that you forgot your wallet at the bar. Your wallet is actually in your pocket. When you go to turn around, you can't tell what color the light is, so you just go. A person is walking across the crosswalk. You hve slow reaction time now, so you hit the person. This is all because of you smoking marijuana. It will kill somebody!!!"

I'm sorry... But anyone who agrees with this... I don't have any respect for you. If you honestly think this this is a typical experience with marijuana, you obviously have little to no factual knowledge on the subject and should just not vote. I hope the 6 people who have already voted for him somehow missed this paragraph. Because if they read it and STILL voted for him... Well... then I just lost faith in humanity.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Antipatriot: I agree. One hit probably won't cause too much harm (unless you have some sort of lung illness). But it is unlikely that a person (who enjoys smoking marijuana) will only take ONE hit. Marijuana use is most often at least a few times a day about two or more days of the week. This is unhealthy. Now, if you could get the THC in another form (like they are trying with medical marijuana) it would be FAR less harmful. BUT I doubt that is going to happen any time soon.

I also think your assertion that the teachers of your school teach you the wrong or exaggerated info because they must do the government's bidding is true. The government wields a LOT of control over public institutions, especially schools. I think the public school system is only getting worse. When I was in high school, I noticed how schools around my state and in others were simply teaching "to the test" (which in my state was the FCAT). The teacher's lesson plans were altered so that they could involve more FCAT "learning" in it. I found that this idea of teaching "to the test" has been effective in teaching HOW to take a comprehensive exam, but NOT in the real life skills and knowledge that truly matter to existing in the world. I feel that kids are more now than ever unprepared for college or the work force, whichever path they choose. But I suppose that's another argument...how much our public school system has declined...

I'm pretty sure everyone has broken a law, whether intentional or accidental. Once again, I agree. On the other hand, I would like to know if he believes that you (or any drug user) should be in prison simply because of the drug usage. On that, I can say that I disagree completely. That is a major problem with our criminal justice system. We have mandatory minimums for drugs, which has so many negative effects that it's really not worth it and therefore, IS a huge drain on society. Not only the drug use, but what we do to the drug user (more importantly).
Posted by AntiPatriot 9 years ago
AntiPatriot
Ineffablesquirrel:
I suppose you're probably right about the health risks of drugs. But even what you said would be far more accurate than what a health teacher said. "One hit" is a far less amount than just "ONE joint", and yet they say you are doing MORE harm than a pack of cigs. Why are teachers, the educators of tomorrow's society, propagating ignorance and falsehoods? If a teacher tried to say that drugs aren't as bad most people think, they would be promptly removed from their position. It's the way the cookie crumbles. I see we are both familiar with philosophy. And I too believe the government needs a redo. Thanks for defending me down there too.

defleppard1691: Why do you say I am a "drain on society"? Honestly... what have I done to deteriorate your "society"? You say because I'm a law-breaker, I am a drain? Why? Because I am the reason the police need to exist? Do you REALLY think I am a criminal and should go to jail? Be isolated with other "criminals"? For years on end? It's fair I suppose... I'm sure you've NEVER broken a law.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
defleppard: The Pro debate was better in every way. Simplifying his debate to "I smoked, then ran" is false and irrational on your part. That is NOT his argument and if you were an active reader, then you would never have made that assumption. On the other hand, I don't agree with his "facts" because I have (in my college career and experience) found them to be completely false, but nonetheless, his debate was much more sophisticated.
Posted by defleppard1691 9 years ago
defleppard1691
i dont see how the pro can win, their main argument was i smoked before and i ran,, all i gotta say is great job your a drain on society, you break laws and are proud, way to go.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Antipatriot: Just to be clear about my position: I am very weary of our government and agree that our government has some pretty stupid, inane, ridiculous, unreasonable, unjustifiable, illogical, "knee-jerk" and outdated laws. I am a government major (finishing up my degree this semester) and I am so disenfranchised with the way our government is structured and run. Trust me, in that, I am on your side. Also, your flag burning topic is interesting. I am currently taking a 1st amendment law class and the topic of flag burning was brought up today. I agree with you whole-heartedly about it. It is cloth. It IS a symbol. I can see where people would be offended because it is THE symbol of our country, but nonetheless, I am completely in favor of the ideas contained in the constitution (and more importantly, the Bill of Rights). It is only a symbol because somewhere along the line of history, someone said "this should be the symbol of our country" and we have kept that idea in our current society. This happens for everything and can be found in basic philosophical thought. Why is a "chair" a "chair"? Same idea applied. Someone said it should be called a "chair" and it should be used to sit on...for whatever reason. This can apply to anything and everything in the world. BUT that's enough philosophy for me...and probably for you too.

Key point: Government is important. I simply think ours needs a bit of an overhaul...in MANY areas, not just in the criminal law arena.

=)
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Antipatriot: I just took a class entitled "Drugs, Deviance, and Crime" this past semester (taught by a man that has been involved in drug therapy, drug crimes, drug enforcement, and research), which is why all of this information is still fresh in my head. I would have continued with evidence, information, stats, etc. if the comment box didn't limit me to 2,000 characters. In addition, I'm afraid if I provide too much knowledge and evidence about my assertions, you will simply think me a college "know-it-all" (like some immature high schoolers on this site have). I would just ask that you research (truly research) a topic before coming to an inaccurate assertion.

Your debating skills are great. You have good grammar, structure, and ability to elucidate and reiterate your facts. Seriously, great job on that. The other side was NOT able to do this effectively and that made a difference in my vote. :)
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
I have to say that the Pro side did a better job debating, but many of his assumptions and assertions are false.

Having studied criminology and government (In May, I will have degrees in both), I have taken many courses dealing with drugs and their effects. Considering I have aspired to be in a drug agency (such as the DEA), I am very concerned with where the Pro side is getting his knowledge. First, yes, the DARE programs and public high schools are public entities ("controlled" by the govt) and I agree they have been ineffective in properly explaining the true nature of drugs, sex, and other things the govt wishes you to have little knowledge about. I, on the other hand, attend a private college and I am learning what I would deem "the true nature" of things in the world, from people who have been there. I have many professors that have been in drug enforcement, corrections, law, and psychology fields. In addition, I know many people who use drugs (both because they are addicted or simply for social occasions). Based on this diverse knowledge, I can easily say that your assertion that marijuana isn't addicting is completely inaccurate factually. Maybe SOME people don't become addicted...but that isn't because it isn't addicting. Many other factors play into an individual's experience. Some of these include how often a person uses, how much they use, history of other drug use, body type, mental illnesses, etc.

"People are taught that if you take one breath in of cannabis smoke, you are doing more harm than if you were to smoke a pack of cigarettes...These claims are obviously erroneous and propagandist." Your health teacher was correct. Cannabis is actually more dangerous than cigarettes. Smoking ONE joint is near equivalent to smoking an ENTIRE pack of cigarettes concerning the harm to the lungs (because of carcinogens, etc.).
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Abyssmo 6 years ago
Abyssmo
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
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 AntiPatriot 8 years ago
AntiPatriot
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
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 libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by batman_is_dumb 9 years ago
batman_is_dumb
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by reagan_views 9 years ago
reagan_views
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
AntiPatriotrighty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03