The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
16 Points

Napoleon v. Washington

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,145 times Debate No: 23574
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (4)




time: 1812

(Yes I know Washington was not in control then).

I argue if there was a war AT THIS TIME in the US (assuming Washington controlled the military) would win.

Factors taken out:

Britain is not in the US at this time, ignore that war. We are assuming instead Napoleon was the invader of 1812 instead.

No semantics trolling etc. 1st round acceptance. I argue Washington wins.


I accept this debate challenge and will be arguing that the French Empire under Napoleon I would have won a hypothetical war with the United States, its armies under the command of George Washington, in 1812.

I would like to clarify that because my opponent states that "Napoleon was the invader of 1812 instead," we are to assume that this war starts on 18 June 1812, the date that began the Second Anglo-American War. Because the famous French invasion of Russia began six days later, on 24 June, we are to assume that the Patriotic War of 1812 in Russia never occurred and Napoleon instead diverted his resources to a war with the United States.

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1


C1 - Guerrilla warfare

Now, this leaves HUGE problems for napoleon in his invasion. His intellect was high, but he always seemed to stumble when it came to being ambushed. This was a huge problem for the British in the revolution. This type of warfare lets it be so you take few casualties, they take multiple hits, and their supply lines begin to dwindle. More then likely there are not well trained and generally fight larger organized troops. "Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare and refers to conflicts in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians (or "irregulars") use military tactics, such as ambushes, sabotage, raids, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately."[1]

Now, before we even consider this significant we must ask a few questions:
1) is it effective?
2) has napoleon countered it well?

The answer to one is yes, it works in most circumstances, and the answer to two is no. Napoleon is terrible at fighting guerrillas. Now, I will explain the answer for #2 in detail as this is a major question in this debate.

At first, Napoleon quickly dealt with the insurgence and the British troops in the peninsula war, but by 1812 wellington took the offensive. [2] The Spanish weapon of this new tactic was very new and was their best asset and advantage. When the Spanish used more regular tactics it almost always ended in defeat. "Most organized attempts on the part of regular Spanish forces to take on the French led to their defeat. However, once the battle was lost and the soldiers reverted to their guerrilla roles, they effectively tied down greater numbers of French troops over a wider area with much less expenditure of men, energy, and supplies. Wellington's final success in the Peninsula is often said to be largely due to the collapse and demoralization of the French military structure in Spain caused by the guerrillas" [3]

This is important as these guerrillas did very well, and defeated the french.

C2 - He would be fighting multiple wars

He was emperor from 1804 - 1815. He was a warmonger, he invaded much of Europe in this time. My opponent may claim this helps his side as they where much of the time a success, and this may sound glib to many readers. But it would also be a finagle.

He woudl be fighting many fronts, one of them woudl actually have been in Spain. Though Napoleon wasn't always stationed there, he would have to have men stationed in Spain so he would not be defeated there or invaded from the rear. He would also be forced to garrison troops to keep people from rebelling and other countries from invading. Here is this picture of his empire at that time:

Dark blue = controlled, lighter blue = politically influenced by. "The subsequent series of wars known collectively as the Napoleonic Wars extended French influence over much of Western Europe and into Poland. At its height in 1812, the French Empire had 130 départements, ruled over 44 million subjects, maintained an extensive military presence in Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Duchy of Warsaw, and could count Prussia and Austria as nominal allies." [4]

So he would have to be garrosining all this area, hence many of his resources would not be aimed at america. Though america would be split too, it would be on a smaller scale.

C3 - Where the US is

This contention is based on the geographical position of the USA. Look at this:

There is a huge divide from the two countries. It took columbus 5 weeks to cross the atlantic. [5] The pilgrims took 66 days. [6] Even if we assume he got there in half the time, 33 days, it would take a month to transport anything troops supplies etc. As I said in round one france was invading the US, it would take a month to get there and get reinforcements too. It is also a problem as large amounts of food would have to be stored, and that would waste resources.

We must also look at the British navy, they where already at war with france. The british had the largest navy in 1812 with 600 cruisers. [7] In the war of 1812 (we assume it didn't happen, but for a second I am) the britsh fought hard to destroy US french trade. [7] If the UK was at war with france, we can assume british naval vesels would sometimes encounter french ships moving towards the US, and then sometimes sink the ship. So with this in mind not only woudl it take a month to get there, but there's also a possibility the british would sink a few frensh ships. And that was only the "oh look get 'em" scenario, it is likely the UK woulf begin to purposfully block the ships leading to more encunters and less ships able to get to america. As you can see, much of the french northern coast is very close to the UK, so the northern coast would be off limits. And we can also see the southern ports are also very close to the UK as well, so the french would have a tough time getting to the US. So it would be easy for Washington to win.

C4 - No one liked france

People who hated france:

French royalists
Papal states
The Ottoman empire
Persia [8]

No one liked france, chances are with france so spread out, being in the US spain etc at the same time many of these countries would take their chances and go for it. The french have troops in the middle of the atlantc, they have troops being attacked by UK ships, being destroyed by gurilla warfare, and he would be being invaded by many countries. He would get his ___ handed to him.


Napoleon a good strategist? Yes, very much so. But would be be able to fight surprise warfare, many wars, taking month[s] to get across a sea, wasting resources in many wars, and being invaded? No, sorry france you would not win. I, PRO, deserve the vote.



I would like to thank 16kadams for his opening argument.

The Nations in 1812

The United States

The United States was still a fledgling republic, in the process of organizing its government and military. When America was forced to choose either Britain or France economically, American legislation on this issue led to ruinous results. Richard Stewart writes that the “resultant crippling of American trade so thoroughly disunited the American people that the government could not count on the loyalty and support of the population when conflict did break out.”1

The United States military was only familiar with the same tactics and procedures it used during the American Revolution. Bonura writes, “[…] events on the Continent made the dominance of existing American drill regulations from the 1780s seem obsolete and antiquated.”2 He later notes that the Continental Army decreased to an extremely reduced size after the Revolution,3 and that during the War of 1812, it “suffered from a lack of uniformity in training and tactics.”4 In fact, his entire work revolves around the United States’ reliance on French military tactics, especially during the Napoleonic era. As for the size of the troops, the United States was again at a disadvantage. During the early months of the War of 1812, the United States was unable to meet its goal of 35,000 Americans in the army, only reaching 12,000 – less than half.5

The French Empire

In 1812, the French Empire was literally at the height of its power. Napoleon held French control over much of Europe. At the Empire’s height, Napoleon controlled Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, and several central and eastern European nations. 6 At its Imperial zenith, the Empire contained 44 million citizens, 40% of the total European population.7

The French Empire was a superpower with a leader who many believed was invincible because of his ability to adapt to situations and conquer armies heavily outmatched. It had a professional and well-equipped army that had already been led to victories across Europe; Coalition after Coalition of allied European nations were crumbling beneath the might of his Empire.


Guerrilla warfare

My opponent states that guerrilla warfare was effective in driving Napoleon’s army out of the Iberian Peninsula. This is very true, Napoleon did suffer greatly against such an unorthodox tactic. However, my opponent fails to show that the American military would actually use these tactics. In fact, after the Revolutionary War, guerrilla warfare was largely abandoned by the American military in favor of a more classic, European-style military. Haney writes, “After the American Revolution, knowledge-based warfare fell into disuse as the nation moved to build large armies, erect fortifications, and maintain fleets with which they might deter a potential aggressor.”8 It is thus safe to assume that America’s formal army, rather than the casual and unprofessional Continental Army, would be used against France in the same way it was used against Britain in the War of 1812; my opponent cannot argue guerrilla tactics because they were not heavily used during the War of 1812.

Let us assume for a moment that America inexplicably abandons their newfound army in favor of guerrilla tactics. American guerrilla tactics were under different circumstances than those of the Spanish. In fact, the geography of Spain was perfectly conditioned for guerrilla tactics. David Chandler writes, “[…] the nature of the terrain would make truly effective operations extremely difficult […] and the whole terrain was more suited for guerrilla than regular warfare.”9 American troops may have been patriotic, but Spanish guerrillas were successful in that they were on optimal guerrilla terrain; allowing the Americans to have this advantage would not only be historically inaccurate.

Multiple wars

My opponent here states that in 1812 Napoleon would have been fighting multiple wars. This is completely false. In fact, since we are dismissing the French invasion of Russia in 1812, the French Empire was only involved in the Peninsular War, as stated earlier; of course, troops stationed anywhere in Europe could be removed and diverted to this American conflict, just as they were for the Invasion of Russia, which was a disaster for the Invasion and not necessarily for elsewhere in Europe.

The Sixth Coalition, formed out of the Convention of Tauroggen, did not begin until 30 December 1812,10 five months after the 1812 invasion of America. It follows, therefore, that it should not be considered for the purposes of this debate because of the thousands of factors that would change due to Napoleon’s invasion of France. To predict what each European nation would do is an impractical and unrealistic task. We only know that the Peninsular War is being fought in Spain; since the French invasion of Russia and the War of the Sixth Coalition occur after this fantasy invasion of America, they should not and realistically cannot be considered.

Location of the United States

My opponent’s main contention here is that the United States is too far away. However, it should be noted that in 1807, five years before this invasion, Napoleon had 34 ships-of-the-line, but had finished another 80 by 1813, with 35 in construction.11 The French Navy was significantly weaker than the Royal Navy, but since both navies were stronger than the fledgling American Navy, and since Napoleon would have mainly fought by army because it was his strength, Navy size simply is not as important as my opponent is making it out to be. That is not to say the French Navy was not a challenging opponent for the Americans.

Apparently, my opponent thinks its relevant to point out how long it took Columbus, in 1492, and then how long it took a ship carrying religious pilgrims in 1620, to cross the Atlantic. My opponent discusses the difficulty of getting to America because of the British fleet; Britain got to America with the difficulty of the French fleet. As evident by Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt, even the naval destruction of his fleet at the Battle of the Nile did not strategically alter his invasion on land.


Military competence

It seems as if my opponent has provided no positive evidence for Washington’s intellect despite the fact that his name is specifically included in the title. Washington is not known as a brilliant tactician or strategist. In fact, had the French not been persuaded to join the American Revolution, “Washington’s military incompetence during the Revolution would have lost the war.”12 Napoleon, however, was a “tireless mastermind and brilliant strategist.”13

Napoleon’s greatest victories are considered some of the greatest masterpieces in history, from Toulon, the Pyramids, Austerlitz, to Wagram, among others. Napoleon, mentally, had a vastly superior advantage. My opponent concedes this point, but it is a significant fact to note, especially when the title is not “France vs. America,” but “Napoleon vs. Washington.”

American military weakness

As explained in my “United States” section in “The Nations in 1812,” the United States suffered from extremely unfavorable conditions (refer to this section for detail). It is not surprising, then, that technically the United States lost the War of 1812 to the British.14

Napoleon’s Marshals

One of the most often overlooked aspects of Napoleon’s military triumphs were the role of the Maréchal d'Empire – the Marshal of the Empire. In 1812, Napoleon had 20 marshals, the most recent being Gouvion-St-Cyr.15 These Marshals were responsible for commanding large portions of the Grande Armée, and were responsible for assisting Napoleon in many of his greatest victories. While it is unknown which of his great Marshals Napoleon would have taken to the United States, one can be certain they were a valuable asset to Napoleon and his army. Napoleon said of one of his Marshals, Lannes, “I found him a pygmy, I lost a giant.”16


Debate Round No. 2


US and France observations

I agree with them, yet he seems to try to the US argument as a downside, yet ignores many factors. It is commonly known that the US militias were armed as they held the right in the second amendment to the constitution. Much of america owned guns, this was vital in the war against the British. My opponent also concedes much of my point by saying they were accustomed to revolutionary war tactics. Ambushes. These civilians, though not always joining the army, often did join militia squads or minute men. Though many began to cease to exist, people not in the military did own guns. Hence could still attack with groups of friends on supply lines. The British, though, suffered from the same reasons I said the french would. Even if the US had more casualties, the US won the war. One of the reasons was the British used large sums of money in the war of 1812. Though the money benefited British america, it hurt the actual English themselves. They also suffered because they were in multiple wars. As this shows: "In Britain, the importance of the conflict was totally overshadowed by European wars, especially the War of the Sixth Coalition against Napoleon"[1] The UK also never gained full military control, the US made slight gains but the war ended more in stalemate. [1] This actually refutes my opponents case, as the UK still lost as they had to withdrawal. Now, the question is why would Napoleon lose? The same reason Britain did: they were fighting larger wars at home, in this case he would be fighting England.

C1 - Guerrilla warfare

Even if we assume my opponents argument is correct, we must look at my other points that I stated all of last round. The UK did not have the resources to win the war of 1812 [2], as they were fighting the french. But the difference is the Brits had control of canada, france has no provinces (well very few) still in North america, hence they lose the advantage the UK even had, meaning the UK's advantage, having canada, would not be there with Napoleon. Hence resources and not having much of a land base to move from would lead to his demise. Further, US troops in the civil war (well the confederates) were quite fond of guerrilla warfare. [3] With this we can assume they would likely enter guerrilla warfare.

My opponents second objection is spain has better land for this tactic. This makes little sense, as we must ask what is ideal landscape? The answer is inconclusive, as most countries have have wars using these tactics before. But if I had to choose forests would likely be ideal, as you get some green cover. And guess what america had? Forests. But this fails, as Guerrilla warfare is so effective. In the battle of concord in the revolution, minutemen also used these tactics which dealt huge casualties to the british. [4] It also forked in taking fort Ticonderoga. [5] Did not make victory but damaged british morale and supplies making them very weak in the battle of yorktown, in the southern campaign.[6] My opponent has failed to show how our terrain is "worse" nor has proven would be ineffective.

C2 - Multiple wars

My opponent is false. He forgets the Sixth Coalition war. And the remembers the peninsula war (helped make the coalition war). [7] Even if we assume my opponent is correct (which he is not) we can ask would this multi war be too much? The UK had problems, all they where fighting was france, so why would it fail vice versa? Also, lets look at the facts. There were 7000 french deaths in that war, and 7000 injured. [8] My opponent claims the 6th coalition was 5 months after, it takes one month to send troops across the sea, hence it would be likely fighting two wars at once as well as taking months to cross the sea means the coalition may form when the was IS STILL happening. So the point stands.

My opponent drops the analysis of france having to garrison large areas of land meaning his resources would be spread out over a large area. To show how large the area was:s://; alt="" width="691px;" height="523px;" />

The lightest blue just means influenced by, darkest blue is owned, medium blue means they where a large factor and technically owned the area. We can see his resources would be spread thin due to garrisoning.

C3 - Placement

So my opponent here is trying to make it seem like Napoleon had a good enough navy, and that navy was not as important as infantry, but this is not the case. But this is very very false. Privateers (something the US would be forced to use as they had a smaller navy) where very effective in curbing trade routes. They would use these boats that would disturb trade and therefore harm frances economy, and mean less reasouces would be in their suppies. This was used against the british. [9] Further, navy is even more essential in this circumstance, navy is how napoleon would have to get here! No navy no ground troops in this war. Further, any mess up by privaters or british fleets near the coast means they either are a) stuck, b) sinking slowly, or c) have to come back for repairs etc. If anything, navy is of paramount importance here!

My opponent falsely argues england got here due to fleet, which is true, but the circumstances are very different.

This was before america took all of french land, and england invaded it. So this is similar to what it looekd like in the revolution. (as shown earlier france lost its territory later here) As we can see England already had a large foothold in the new world and owned much of the water ways. With a land base already made, and much of the trade existing, comparing french 1812 and English to the revolution naval wise is quite hard to do for your side, the british had it a lot better then the french would have in this situation. England also had the best navy of its time. [10] So the comparison you made fails.

C4 - No one liked france

Dropped. I would like to add the reason england did not crush us was because they had no [few] allies. [10]

My opponents claims

Military competance

This is undeniable, but we must also look at why washington was a good leader (and also this argunment fails as it ignores my other contentions). tactics is actually a small part of generalship. Here is some french praise of our troops:
"I cannot insist too strongly how I was surprised by the American Army. It is truly incredible that troops almost naked, poorly paid, and composed of old men and children and Negroes should behave so well on the march and under fire." —Attributed to a French Officer [11]

And again, the distance and gurrella tactics would decimate napoleon.

Americas weakness

*low on room hence the shortness*
The war of 1812 was a stalemate. [12] Further the US had the HAD the potential to make such a large army the english would, well, have to give up. But as they where a newer nation it was harder for them to make troops, their efforts where poor. Also the US had more of a capability in ALL areas, yet stumbled a little. They could have eaily won that war, but was a stalemate, and could easily win a war with france. [13]

Napoleons Marshals

Yes, the Marshals where a important peice of his army. Your point? This also means he would have lees troops fighting in europe, so he may be more hesitant to send multiple troops.

*no room for conclusion[s]*


Vote for washingon!



I thank 16kadams for his contribution to the debate.

The Nations in 1812

My opponent agrees with my observations on the French Empire and the United States. I did not concede and say they were accustomed to “ambushes,” but rather outdated 18th century style warfare. My opponent is attempts to push his guerrilla warfare point through but it simply fails. Washington’s army during the Revolution consisted of militia, the type to use guerrilla; however, the formal, stable army America constructed after the War did not use guerrilla tactics because the military simply wasn’t built with that intent. The Continental Army used guerrilla tactics because it didn’t have the ability to meet the British directly; the formal military the United States built after the Revolution would have, because it was built for just that. I will discuss guerilla warfare later on in my rebuttals. I will discuss the military and political results of the War of 1812 later.


Guerrilla warfare

Simply put, my opponent has not provided an adequate response. I have already proven that the American military would not have used guerrilla tactics because of the contemporary need to develop a more formal military rather than the informal Continental Army. As I quoted earlier, “knowledge-based warfare fell into disuse as the nation moved to build large armies, erect fortifications, and maintain fleets with which they might deter a potential aggressor.”1

The use of guerrilla warfare during the American Revolution and American Civil War are not in dispute; I have already agreed guerrilla was used in the Revolution and I do not disagree it was used in the Civil War. My opponent states that we can assume guerrilla warfare would be used in the War. This is a misleading and blatantly dishonest assumption; we are under no obligation to believe a tactic would be used because it was used in other wars. My opponent has provided no evidence to show it was used heavily during the War of 1812; in place, I have shown it was not used.

My opponent continues to cite its use during the American Revolution– but still, he has not provided a single bit of substantial evidence that guerrilla was used in the War of 1812 against the British. He attacks my terrain argument with a personal view on ideal terrain, stating that in his opinion forests were ideal. My point was that Spanish geography was preconditioned to enable guerrilla, rendering it effective against Napoleon; otherwise, Napoleon would have destroyed the Spanish partisans. In fact, in Egypt, Napoleon already combatted guerrilla warfare. He defeated the Egyptian Mamelukes, who were “exceptionally mobile and were specialists in guerrilla warfare,”2 several times. Napoleon’s major clash with the Mamelukes during the Battle of the Pyramids resulted in a French loss of 29 men and a Mameluke loss of 2,000.3 Again, Napoleon was capable against guerrilla – the Spanish had ideal terrain which was detrimental to Napoleon’s troops. My opponent has delivered no evidence but his own humble opinion that America would have this terrain – if they abruptly forgot about the formal military they had been building for years!

Multiple wars

My opponent states that I forgot the War of the Sixth Coalition but then goes on to quote my argument that it took place five months later. Of course multiple wars interferes with a quick victory – but as my opponent agrees, Britain fought multiple wars at the time as well. Let us assume that, even though France’s transatlantic invasion would surely have changed the political atmosphere of Europe an immeasurably great deal, the War of the Sixth Coalition begins precisely as it would have if the fantasy American invasion never happened.

Napoleon is considered an expert at fighting multiple wars at once. Mearsheimer writes, “When Napoleon was involved with several enemies, he was able to overcome all of them, one after the other. In 1805 he had defeated the Austrians at Ulm before the Russians arrived; he defeated the Russians with the remnants of the Austrians at Austerlitz before the Prussians intervened. In 1806 he again defeated the Prussians before the Russians were on hand […] and in 1807 he defeated the Russians before the Austrians had pulled themselves together again.”4 Consequently, Napoleon was competent against multiple enemies.


I recognize that the navy is important as it is the means by which Napoleon would have traveled to America. My opponent argues that the use of American privateers would have destroyed Napoleon’s well-equipped navy. My opponent, however, forgets that Napoleon himself already had hundreds of privateers in the New World, as far south as Savannah!5 Any supposed advantage America would have because of privateers is thus negated because of the same strength on the other side.

As I have already stated, the French Navy would be under the same stress that the Royal Navy had in crossing the Atlantic; because the Royal Navy was able to make the voyage, the French Navy would likely have been able to as well, but with casualties, as the Royal Navy also suffered. Again, Napoleon during the invasion of Egypt was able to continue his invasion even after complete naval loss at the Battle of the Nile. My opponent has not responded to this. The naval argument is thus a weak one.

If anything, my opponent’s map supports my argument. The presence of large numbers of French speakers in American territory would only assist the French in their conquest of America. With news of a shattering success in Europe, the French Canadians with their French roots might well have declared for Napoleon and rose up ready to fight; Louisiana would have been the same.

French hatred

This is irrelevant to a fantasy invasion of America because almost none of these European countries had the interest or power to get involved. Moreover, the invasion of America would have changed attitudes and alliances in all of these European powers; it is arrogant to assume you know exactly what these nations would do in an alternate timeline. Once again, not only is it impractical to determine the attitude towards Napoleon in the existing timeline, it is more impractical to attempt to determine their attitude in an alternate timeline. There is no point in trying to argue over such uncertainty.


Military competence

George Washington’s style would have been recognized by Napoleon as being distinctly 18th century. It was outmoded by Napoleon’s modern warfare. Napoleon, in 1812, would certainly have taken advantage of Washington’s ignorance of the evolution of warfare. Washington came from an era where armies fought in the style of Frederick the Great. Foolishly, when Prussians adhered to that style in 1806, Napoleon dealt a huge blow during the Jena-Auerstadt campaign! By Napoleon’s time, warfare had moved on in leaps and bounds.

America’s weakness

My opponent’s source 2 actually declares the War of 1812 to be a military victory for the British, and he cites a short explanation for elementary schoolers as a source for the stalemate claim. The War ended officially as a status quo ante bellum,6 so it should be noted that militarily it was a victory for the British – who were better armed and better trained. It should be no surprise that if one were to subtract the British and add the French, a great leader such as Napoleon would have outmatched the American leadership. Again, America was militarily weaker, and this would be the case against the British or the French.


Napoleon’s marshals were a group of men that have become legendary for their abilities on the battlefield. Innocenti writes, “Napoleon’s marshals were the heart of his army structure. The corps system Napoleon invented could not function without intelligent, independent commanders capable of taking his overall strategy and translating that into efficient military operations.”7 Marshals like Lannes were nearly as legendary as Napoleon in their abilities.


Debate Round No. 3


Sadly I am not motivated to finish this debate, I think I agree more with con now anyway. I concede.

Hey, now my opponent and I are even ;)



I would like to thank 16kadams for the chance to debate, and for his humble concession.

It has been a pleasure to defend Napol´┐Żon Bonaparte in a victory against General Washington.

Vive L'Empereur!
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bored_Debater 1 month ago
Interesting debate.. I do believe that the United States would be in a MUCH better condition under Washington and would have been capable of handling Napoleon France in a war in 1812. Maybe if you're interested, we could debate this?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
On Pages, Control-Command–plus sign (+)
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago

How do you superscript on Mac?
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
You mean superscript? I write in Word, with the footnotes, and then paste it in and the DDO text editor keeps the superscript.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
How do you get footnotes like that?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
whenever you lose a debate it seems to have a more downward pull. :P
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Oh really? /sarcasm
Which is why we should keep as many constants as possible when dealing with hypothetical situations.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
This whole debate is predicted XD
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
What question? If its based on your predictions I can't answer
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: hey
Vote Placed by Ixaax 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I read the entire thing... I wish concessions would be posted near the top so as to save time. It was a good debate until then.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Starts debate, then forfeits. Class.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.