The Instigator
Zealotical
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atheism
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Medical Marijuana

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,886 times Debate No: 13741
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Zealotical

Con

========
Introduction
========

I will be arguing that Medical Marijuana should be illegal while my opponent will argue that medical marijuana should be and/or remain legal. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as but not necessarily limited to AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc.

If my opponent feels that there is something I haven't made clear then tell me during the first round of this debate and I will be more than happy to clarify as best as I can. I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate.

I will let my opponent start his argument first.

======
Definition
======

Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs.

Medical: Relating to the study or practice of medicine.
Atheism

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate.

Let's get started off with the contentions.

1) Beneficial in health.
As noted by my own opponent, medical marijuana can help alleviate symptoms of pain, discomfort, and lack of appetite caused by many common disease, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. This can go uncontested, as my opponent has already agreed that medical marijuana has these properties.
Of course, there are even more benefits of marijuana, such as a prevention of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and its progression. (1)(2)
A legalization of medical marijuana would aid those who are in pain from said diseases and symptoms.

2) Reduce number of those in prison.

The current amount of arrests of marijuana-related crimes totals over 700,000 thousand a year, and that was back in 2005! (3) Of these, a whopping 88% were just for simple possession, while the rest were only for sale or manufacture. (3)
These inmates who have done nothing morally wrong or reprehensible are now spending years and years in prison, just for possessing or growing marijuana.

3) Help cut our spending.

We currently spend more than 15.5 billion dollars a year on marijuana arrests. (4) If legalized and taxed, not only would we eliminate that spending, but we would also have a major source of revenue that would help pull us out of this recession, as marijuana is our best cash crop, pulling in $35 billion dollars per year. (5)(6)

4) Little to no side effects.

Marijuana causes a very small amount of, if at all, side effects, which are negligible at best. (7)(8)

5) It doesn't make any sense to render it illegal.

And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It is not overly harmful, if at all, and it doesn't have any second-hand smoke effects. There is simply no logical/moral reason to keep it illegal. No one should have a right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest. You don't violate the rights of others in any way, shape or form, so why should it be illegal? There is not convincing argument as to why.

6) User's choice.

The consumer is not forced to buy, smoke, or use marijuana in any way. It has no negative repercussions to anyone aside to the consumer. Marijuana does not make you do anything. If you choose to purchase and smoke marijuana, it is your choice, and the government should not prevent you from ingesting what you will, be it alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana.

I thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to his next round.

SOURCES

http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com... (1)(8)
http://tinyurl.com... (2)
http://www.nowpublic.com... (3)
http://www.changetheclimate.org... (4)
http://abcnews.go.com... (5)
http://www.drugpolicy.org... (6)(7)
Debate Round No. 1
Zealotical

Con

======
Rebuttal
======
[QUOTE]
1) Beneficial in health.
As noted by my own opponent, medical marijuana can help alleviate symptoms of pain, discomfort, and lack of appetite caused by many common disease, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. This can go uncontested, as my opponent has already agreed that medical marijuana has these properties.
Of course, there are even more benefits of marijuana, such as a prevention of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and its progression. (1)(2)
A legalization of medical marijuana would aid those who are in pain from said diseases and symptoms.
[/QUOTE]

The main chemical used in "medical marijuana" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make "medical marijuana" contain only 3% THC.
In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards.

Not only that but the few good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption.

Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin?
Obviously no because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage.

Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana?

[QUOTE]
2) Reduce number of those in prison.

The current amount of arrests of marijuana-related crimes totals over 700,000 thousand a year, and that was back in 2005! (3) Of these, a whopping 88% were just for simple possession, while the rest were only for sale or manufacture. (3)
These inmates who have done nothing morally wrong or reprehensible are now spending years and years in prison, just for possessing or growing marijuana.

3) Help cut our spending.

We currently spend more than 15.5 billion dollars a year on marijuana arrests. (4) If legalized and taxed, not only would we eliminate that spending, but we would also have a major source of revenue that would help pull us out of this recession, as marijuana is our best cash crop, pulling in $35 billion dollars per year. (5)(6)
[/QUOTE]

Instead of sending those people to prison, we could just make them pay a citation and the citation would depend on how much marijuana the person possesses. This would also help the recession while keeping marijuana illegal.

[QUOTE]
4) Little to no side effects.

Marijuana causes a very small amount of, if at all, side effects, which are negligible at best. (7)(8)

5) It doesn't make any sense to render it illegal.

And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It is not overly harmful, if at all, and it doesn't have any second-hand smoke effects. There is simply no logical/moral reason to keep it illegal. No one should have a right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest. You don't violate the rights of others in any way, shape or form, so why should it be illegal? There is not convincing argument as to why.
[/QUOTE]

This is obviously false. Depending on the user Marijuana usually causes the user to become hungry, lazy, paranoid, etc...

Marijuana could cause obesity from hunger and that's if the user can get food. If the user can't get food in time, they will die of starvation. Marijuana could cause people to be lazy and therefore if marijuana was legal, The recession would actually be worse. Marijuana could cause people to be paranoid and lose trust in others causing them to go insane and crime rate may possibly go up and thus, this would do harm to others.

=======
Arguments
=======

1)People say that marijuana can make the user "happy." Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place.

2)What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available.

3)It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole.

4) Marinol is a better alternative to medical marijuana.

=====
Sources
=====
http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com...
http://www.drugs.com...
http://www.justice.gov...
Atheism

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his rebuttal.

REBUTTALS TO REBUTTALS
------------

1)
//The main chemical used in "medical marijuana" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make "medical marijuana" contain only 3% THC.
In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards.//

And that is the user's choice. None of these other 'hazardous' chemicals have ever been proved to be harmful whatsoever. I ask my opponent to source his claims to relevant studies.

2)
//Not only that but the few good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption.//

There are some very serious problems with my opponent's arguments. (S)He has refused to show how studies contradict his statement. In 1980, when Marinol was released, there were six State-sponsored studies running alongside the distribution of the drug. All of the studies had conclusive evidence, namely the thousands of patients who participated in the studies, that naturally grown marijuana was safer, and more effective than Marinol. (1) One study had a subject accuse his/her doctor of trying to poison him. This patient was one of the experimental trials for Marinol, not marijuana.
Might I also add that tobacco and alcohol, while infinitely more harmful to the user than marijuana, are still legal? Why should marijuana be illegal, when it actually provides benefits to the user?

3)

//Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin?

No, they don't. However, as noted in my fifth and sixth arguments, which you tried to hide away, I noted that it was the user's choice, and that the government should have no say in what you can and cannot consume. If you want to eat very greasy food, go right ahead. If you want to smoke marijuana or inject yourself with heroin, go ahead. And if you want to consume rat poison for breakfast, who am I to stop you?

4)

//Obviously no because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage.//

Your point? Opium and heroin ought to be legal for the simple reason that it is not the government's role to tell you what to consume. If it is harmful, then the consequences are upon you, and you alone.

5)

//Instead of sending those people to prison, we could just make them pay a citation and the citation would depend on how much marijuana the person possesses. This would also help the recession while keeping marijuana illegal.//

This wouldn't be a proper replacement for marijuana at all. The criminals would only get harder to catch, and the citations wouldn't be as nearly as good a revenue as it would should marijuana be legalized and taxed.

6)

//This is obviously false. Depending on the user Marijuana usually causes the user to become hungry, lazy, paranoid, etc...//
Cite sources. Marijuana -may- cause the user to have those symptoms. Anyways, just because marijuana makes you hungry, lazy, or paranoid, this makes the drug so bad it needs to be illegal? That's just inane. And stupid.

7)

//Marijuana could cause obesity from hunger and that's if the user can get food. If the user can't get food in time, they will die of starvation.//

So, because marijuana may cause someone to be hungry, they will automatically become obese. This assumes that the user smokes marijuana 24/7, and becomes hungry while using it. And then you randomly say, '..IF the user can get food.' What does that even mean? That smoking marijuana will cause you to either become obese, or suddenly become unable to purchase food? That's just foolish. What's with the last statement, anyways? If ANYONE can't consume edible food within a certain amount of time, they will die. That's just common sense, and applies to everything, really.

8)

//Marijuana could cause people to be lazy and therefore if marijuana was legal, The recession would actually be worse.//

Let's put your argument into a syllogism.
P1: Marijuana may make you lazy (not evidenced).
P2: If someone consumes marijuana, they WILL be lazy. (False.)
Conclusion: Consuming marijuana will make the recession worse. (Non-sequitur, and just a point blank wtf.)
Obviously, I need not say anything else.

9)

//Marijuana could cause people to be paranoid and lose trust in others//
Okay..
//causing them to go insane//
Losing trust makes you go insane. What?
//and crime rate may possibly go up and
Going insane ups the crime rate. Why?
//thus, this would do harm to others.//
More crime= More harm to others. Somehow.

All of this argument is a big non-sequitur chain of fail.

Voters, take note that my opponent dropped contention 6.
REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENT
-------------------------------

1)

//People say that marijuana can make the user "happy." Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society.
Not negative. Even if it is, it is the user's choice to use said drug.

//Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine,//
Have you ever heard of an anti-depressant?

//and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism?//
Of course! If you have the facts available to you on what the drug does, then you can consume it no matter what! The government ought not control what you ingest.//

//The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana,
This argument doesn't even make sense. It's missing lots and lots of words to make it work.

//nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place.//
The use you are describing is called an anti-depressant. Marijuana is an anti-depressant. Look at that, it does fall under the concept of medical marijuana.

2)

//What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available.//

Disproved that one a while ago. Anyways, legalizing marijuana will lower crime rates.

3)

//It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. //
How?

//Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick,/
Yes, it does. Multiple studies demonstrating that it does.

//while simultaneously harming society as a whole.//
How? Show me. It is beneficial in health, helps the economy, and lowers crime rate.

4)

//Marinol is a better alternative to medical marijuana.//

I call bullsh!t.(1)(2)

Thanks to my opponent, and now I turn the debate over to him.

SOURCES
-----------
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com... (1)
http://dying.about.com... (2)
Debate Round No. 2
Zealotical

Con

======================================================
Rebuttals to Rebuttals to Rebuttals and Rebuttals to Rebuttals to my arguments
======================================================
[QUOTE]
And that is the user's choice. None of these other 'hazardous' chemicals have ever been proved to be harmful whatsoever. I ask my opponent to source his claims to relevant studies.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is the user's choice and it is also a choice that most users regret later. Not all users regret it but the majority of users do and the majority is a bigger number than the minority. I know this from experience so I guess I will use myself as a source. I use to smoke marijuana with some friends about a couple of years ago and it was amazing at first however, I quit because I realized how it was affecting me. My reaction time was slower, I was craving food constantly. I would eat about $60.00 worth of food a day. I didn't use marijuana that much at first but then the addiction started to get worse and worse. I was constantly craving it and I would be stoned at least 15 hours a day if not longer and not only me, but my friends as well.

[QUOTE]
There are some very serious problems with my opponent's arguments. (S)He has refused to show how studies contradict his statement.
[/QUOTE]

I gave sources in my last round....

[QUOTE]
No, they don't. However, as noted in my fifth and sixth arguments, which you tried to hide away
[/QUOTE]

I didn't try to hide anything, you talk about how people should have choices, it was my choice not to respond to your sixth argument during the last round but I did respond to your fifth argument.

[QUOTE]
I noted that it was the user's choice, and that the government should have no say in what you can and cannot consume. If you want to eat very greasy food, go right ahead. If you want to smoke marijuana or inject yourself with heroin, go ahead. And if you want to consume rat poison for breakfast, who am I to stop you?

Your point? Opium and heroin ought to be legal for the simple reason that it is not the government's role to tell you what to consume. If it is harmful, then the consequences are upon you, and you alone.

legalizing marijuana will lower crime rates.
[/QUOTE]

My opponent is technically saying that if you have kids and/or pets that depend on you and you decide to get really drunk, smoke marijuana, and/or inject heroin and you beat, rape, and/or kill your kids and/or pets, it's alright because it's your choice. Stuff like this WON'T ALWAYS happen but it's bad enough without marijuana and other drugs being legal whereas being legal will probably make it worse. It's better to be safe than sorry.

My point is that it's not only harmful to you, but also to other people and pets around you.

The government isn't telling you that you can't, they are telling you that it's against the law. You still have the ability, so technically you still can even though you shouldn't.

[QUOTE]
Might I also add that tobacco and alcohol, while infinitely more harmful to the user than marijuana, are still legal?
[/QUOTE

Exactly, which is why tobacco and alcohol should also be illegal!

[QUOTE]
Why should marijuana be illegal, when it actually provides benefits to the user?
[/QUOTE]

I already gave some reasons in my last round however, I will give a few more in this round. Marinol is taken orally, thereby eliminating exposure to other chemicals found in marijuana. Once it reaches peak levels in the blood, Marinol stays fairly steady and lasts twice as long as marijuana therefore medical marijuana wouldn't be needed.
[QUOTE]
This wouldn't be a proper replacement for marijuana at all. The criminals would only get harder to catch, and the citations wouldn't be as nearly as good a revenue as it would should marijuana be legalized and taxed.
[/QUOTE]

I don't want my taxes to go to drugs. This would actually make users have less money because of taxes. The government would get richer while the pot heads would get poorer.

[QUOTE]
If ANYONE can't consume edible food within a certain amount of time, they will die. That's just common sense, and applies to everything, really.
[/QUOTE

True, however marijuana speeds up the process where you get hungry more often where you have to spend more money on food and marijuana.

[QUOTE]
Voters, take note that my opponent dropped contention 6.
[/QUOTE]

Voters, take note that my opponent was talking about how we should have choices and I chose to drop it during that round but it got responded indirectly in this round. I think it's ridiculous that my opponent pointed this out because if you took the time to read the previous posts from the other rounds you would know this.

Voters, please read over and analyze the debate before making your decision to vote. I'm not going to vote for myself unless my opponent votes for himself. If he votes for himself, I will vote for myself to make it fair.

I await my opponent's final response wish both of us luck.

========
SOURCES
========
Myself
Common Sense
http://dying.about.com...
Atheism

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
REBUTTALS TO REBUTTALS
--------------------------------

//Yes, it is the user's choice and it is also a choice that most users regret later. Not all users regret it but the majority of users do and the majority is a bigger number than the minority.//

Unwarranted and sourceless claim. My opponent has not provided proof of this statement! Furthermore, even if the user regrets it, that is his or her fault.

//I know this from experience so I guess I will use myself as a source. I use to smoke marijuana with some friends about a couple of years ago and it was amazing at first however, I quit because I realized how it was affecting me. My reaction time was slower, I was craving food constantly. I would eat about $60.00 worth of food a day. I didn't use marijuana that much at first but then the addiction started to get worse and worse. I was constantly craving it and I would be stoned at least 15 hours a day if not longer and not only me, but my friends as well.//

Personal experience means nothing in a debate, as you basically ask the voter to trust you without any substantial evidence as to why. Furthermore, marijuana is NOT addictive. (1) Also, if your friends smoked it, then it is their fault, and not yours.

//I gave sources in my last round....//

Just citing sources doesn't prove anything unless they are used in conjunction with the relevant topic at hand. You gave sources, yes, but you didn't show that your claim, 'Marinol is better than medical marijuana,' was contradicted by many studies, as I did.

//I didn't try to hide anything, you talk about how people should have choices, it was my choice not to respond to your sixth argument during the last round but I did respond to your fifth argument.//

So you basically admit to dropping the argument. That's always fun. Now that my argument went uncontested, the resolution is refuted, unless you have provided a refutation later in this round.

//My opponent is technically saying that if you have kids and/or pets that depend on you and you decide to get really drunk, smoke marijuana, and/or inject heroin and you beat, rape, and/or kill your kids and/or pets, it's alright because it's your choice. Stuff like this WON'T ALWAYS happen but it's bad enough without marijuana and other drugs being legal whereas being legal will probably make it worse. It's better to be safe than sorry.//

Straw-man. I have noted very specifically in that if it harms the user and only the user, then they can do whatever they wish to their bodies. Not once have I stated that it was morally correct to beat, rape, and kill others. I have said that marijuana is not morally reprehensible because it does not infringe upon the rights of others. It only harms the user.

//My point is that it's not only harmful to you, but also to other people and pets around you.//

No, your point is a strong straw-man. Anything that indirectly results from your actions while under the influence of marijuana is your fault, not the drugs'.

//The government isn't telling you that you can't,//

Yes they are, that is what a government does. The laws they make dictate what you can and cannot do.

//they are telling you that it's against the law.

No, they are telling you that you SHOULDN'T do whatever action under PENALTY OF LAW.

//You still have the ability, so technically you still can even though you shouldn't.//

The 'shouldn't' is contained within the 'can'. When a government passes a law, they basically say that you can not, and therefore should not, do something under penalty of law.

//Exactly, which is why tobacco and alcohol should also be illegal!//

'Kay.

//I already gave some reasons in my last round//

Which I debased.

//however, I will give a few more in this round. Marinol is taken orally, thereby eliminating exposure to other chemicals found in marijuana.//

I debunked that claim, view my round 2. Marinol is, in comparison to medical marijuana, an inferior drug.

//Once it reaches peak levels in the blood, Marinol stays fairly steady and lasts twice as long as marijuana therefore medical marijuana wouldn't be needed.//

View my round 2, which you seem to have glossed over, really.

//I don't want my taxes to go to drugs.//

The taxes do not 'go to drugs' as you put it. When they are illegal, they go to drug cartels to do whatever with it, likely to grow more pot and thus sell more to the consumer. When it is legal, however, it can go to the government to do infinitely more rewarding things.

//This would actually make users have less money because of taxes.//

When on the black market, things are higher in value because they are illegal. When they are legal, however, they increase in supply, and thus decrease in value. That's how a black market works. Now, if prices for marijuana went down, they'd have even more money in comparison to before, even given the taxes imposed.

//The government would get richer while the pot heads would get poorer.//

False.

//True, however marijuana speeds up the process where you get hungry more often where you have to spend more money on food and marijuana.//

Back to wild claims, eh? Well, as much as I'd have loved for you to source them, you didn't, and I'm just going to debunk this anyways. Marijuana does not speed up any digestive tract processes, as far as I'm aware of. The only thing you can possibly be talking about are hunger pangs, one of the main things marijuana is praised for, because it helps anorexics, patients who undergo chemotherapy, and glaucoma patients get their hunger back so they do not have to be fed through a tube.
Anyways, even if you do get hungry while under the influence of marijuana, which is a side effect not seen in many, the cravings do not automatically make you go in a rabid food devouring spree, much to my opponent's dismay. It does not turn you into any sort of wild beast fraught with feelings of starvation. If you do get hungry while under the influence of marijuana, the worst case scenario would you be eating that entire turkey dinner you had planned for Thanksgiving. Drats.

//Voters, take note that my opponent was talking about how we should have choices and I chose to drop it during that round but it got responded indirectly in this round.//

Not really. And any attempt at doing so was utterly thrashed, if I do say so myself.

//I think it's ridiculous that my opponent pointed this out because if you took the time to read the previous posts from the other rounds you would know this.//

Nope, because of the simple fact you didn't actual mention it up until this round.

Anyways, I again thank my opponent for this debate.
The voters however, I apologize to, as no new arguments were made, and the same points made time and again. I am deeply sorry.

Vote Pro, if you took the time to read through this rehashed debate.

SOURCES
-----------

http://www.drugpolicy.org... (1)
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
And that is just a totally annoying vote-bomb. At least give a reason for it!
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
The feeling is mutual.
Posted by Zealotical 6 years ago
Zealotical
Atheism,

Thanks for challenging me, you seem to be a worthy opponent and it looks like this is going to be an interesting debate.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Never mind that last comment.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
So, will you take the Burden of Proof, or will your opponent take it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 5 years ago
Atheism
ZealoticalAtheismTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by MarcL 6 years ago
MarcL
ZealoticalAtheismTied
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