The Instigator
xiaotian-Z
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
clovenrose
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Ninjas are superior to spartans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
xiaotian-Z
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,462 times Debate No: 11138
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

xiaotian-Z

Pro

for this debate i'll be arguing on the pro side. i hope that my opponent will state his case in the second round, this round will be an intro. and hey cloven rose, how's it going!
clovenrose

Con

Hi there, I'm Clovenrose. I'll post my argument after the Pro constructive.
Debate Round No. 1
xiaotian-Z

Pro

hey, can this be a three round debate please?
please post your argument in the third round, thanks!
clovenrose

Con

yeah sure! take your time.
Debate Round No. 2
xiaotian-Z

Pro

right! first of all thank you for accepting the debate!

i affirm the resolution 'ninjas are superior to spartans'

for clarification i will offer the following definition:
superior as defined by wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, is: of high or superior quality or performance.
my value for this debate will be effectiveness. ninjas are warriors of stealth, and can destroy their targets with minimal casualty on their side.
my value criterion will be stealth. ninjas can kill their targets with stealth, which allows them to get away swiftly and kill their targets with only a few ninjas and suffer minimal or no casualty. with Spartans, the only way they can fight is in open warfare, and the Spartans cannot be hired by anyone to kill people or to kill anyone because either of them can lead to war on Sparta.

Contention 1: ninjas are fundamentally better than spartans.
In a Spartan's military training, boys and girls are sent to a military training camp at the age of seven where they are forced to steal things and not be discovered while enduring military training. the ninjas, on the other hand, have a variety of training techniques; Aside from the expected martial art disciplines and techniques, a youth studied survival and scouting techniques, as well as information regarding poisons and explosives. they also have a wide knowledge of curing herbs, which would allow them to cure themselves when doctors are not at hand. the ninjas not only endure physical hardships, but they also have mental techniques i.e. the ninjutsu, which helps them endure many more hardship become better warriors.

Contention 2: the weapons of ninjas are better than that of spartans.
ninjas have a variety of weapons that include ninjas stars (shurikens), ninja knives (kuni), poison, bombs, and blowguns. spartans only have spears and swords as weapons and shields for protection. my opponent may argue that ninjas have nothing to protect themselves, but ninjas do not reveal themselves to the enemy; and by the time the enemy realizes there ninjas present, the ninjas will have either retreated, killed the enemies still alive, or shifted to a new location; ninjas' techniques focus on stealth, not the haphazard hack and slash used by spartans. aside from that, the weapon of ninjas are also better than that of spartans: the projectiles weapons such as ninja stars and blowguns allow ninjas to kill their enemies at a distance, and as the weapons are relatively small, many of the projectiles can be carried by ninjas easily. a spartan have only spears, which are large and inefficient, as projectile weapons; spartans can only carry one too two spears due to their long shape and their large volume in comparison to small projectiles used by ninjas. in a battle, spartans can throw their weapons once or twice because they will likely to only have one or two spears, whereas ninjas can throw numerous stars that can be a great deal more deadly than spears due to the fact that they can be coated with deadly poison.

contention 3: the ninjas are more efficient in killing their targets.
the subtle way of ninjas allow them to kill their enemies without casualty on their side. for example, if a ninja clan was paid to eliminate a entire fortress that's well guarded for war, then the ninjas have many options such as:
1. infiltrate the fortress with stealth (the fortress is only guarded against armies in warfare) and poison the food supply.
2. female ninjas (kunoichi) can infiltrate the fortress in disguise as entertainers for feasts and kill the inhabitans after they are drunk and asleep.
these tactics are both useful and have minimal too no casualty; whereas, a spartan will have to march to the fortress, give away their element of suprise because they are moving as an army, and then fight head on with the well-guarded fortress. this tactic requires many solders and causes heavy casualty among the spartans.

these things prove that the ninjas are superior to spartans because they are effective, easy to hire, can kill without heavy casualty on their side, can heal themselves when injured, and have a variety of weapons at their disposal. so i urge the audience to please vote for pro.

please leave a comment when you vote, i would appreciate pointers and areas to improve.

i eagerly await my opponent's reply.
clovenrose

Con

Thank you,

I negate of the resolution the states: "Ninjas are superior to Spartans"

I'll offer some of the following definitions for clarification:

Superior- of higher rank, quality, or important (Merriam Webster)
Ninjas-: a person trained in ancient Japanese martial arts and employed especially for espionage and assassinations

For this case, I will be using the Value of "Superiority".To achieve this, I'll use the Value Criterion of "Winning in a Fight." Throughout nature, animals establish their dominance through fighting. Nearly all animals engage in violent confrontations to prove superiority, and therefore I'm sure my partner will agree that this is a fair way to judge superiority. For this reason I'd like to impose a simple objective for my opponent: In over for my opponent to win this round, he will have to prove that a ninja can win in a fair (no external advantages, such as stealth) fight with a Spartan." I'll begin.

Contention one: Spartans have a major advantage over ninjas due to armor. While a ninja might be able to avoid and dodge a few attacks made by a Spartan, the Spartan has armor to avoid this. First, lets take a look at what the traditional ninja clothing is... a ninja will wear dark, often tight clothing for stealth purposes. The clothes, however, contain no armor or any protection against attacks. In essence, this leaves the entire ninjas body exposed and unprotected, meaning any type of attack could potentially be fatal. My opponent may claim that a ninja does not actually need armor since the ninja is trained to dodge attacks, up to a level. However, with a Spartans armor the Spartan can devote less time and energy from dodging and spend more time with offensive attacks, which will undoubtedly help the Spartan win in a fight.

Contention 2: A Spartans weaponry is more suitable for offense than a ninja. The weapons a ninja will take with him or her are specifically used for stealth, and assassin purposes. These weapons are lightweight (meaning they will NOT be able to pierce a Spartans heavy armor), and require great skill to use, meaning the ninja will use his efforts to properly execute a difficult attack, leaving the ninja prone to the spartans attacks. The spartans weaprony is much more accustomed to close range fighting. All of these factors will give a spartan a major advantage in a fight.

Now, I'd like to address a few of the claims my opponent has made in his Aff case.

My opponent has used the Value of effectivness paired with the value criterion of stealth. However: let me ask this, the only time this would be usefull would be if the Ninja was sneaking up on the Spartan, an advantage my =objective does not allow you to have. This like me saying that a spartan would win in a fight ifhe were 30 times taller than a ninja. Neither side, as I'm sure the judges will agree should have such a preposterous advantage.
For my opponents first criterion, he mentions that a ninja has an advantage because he or she can heal themselves during a fight. Of course, this would be very hard to do without leaving oneself prone to attack, so I'd urge my judge to disreagard this point.
He later mentions that the weaprony of a ninja is more suited to stealth that a spartans. I agree. However: as I have mentioned several times before, stealth is not pratical in a fight.
Finally, my opponent in his third contention is a retread that ninjas have stealth to aid them. I'm sure the points have made before cover this contention. Ther cannot be an unfair advantage in the case...
Debate Round No. 3
xiaotian-Z

Pro

Thank you for your timely response.

A few points: I do not agree that in order to prove that someone is superior they have to ‘fight it out'. My opponent suggested that people engage in violent confrontations to prove superiority, but this is not true; debate is a prime example of how that statement is false: no matter how buff and muscular the debater is, the smarter debater will always win; you cannot say that the buff debater won because in a ‘violent confrontation' he would have won. The debater that has more persuasive arguments would have won and thus superior to his muscular opponent.

My main point, and the main point of this argument, is that ninjas are more effective. I would never suggest a ninja fighting a Spartan, as it never has nor ever will happen. I'm looking at strong point of both warriors and deciding which is more effective in military tactics and the conditions of success. I do not have to prove that ninjas can win in a fair fight against a Spartan because it is not what my case is trying to prove, nor is it the point of the resolution and debate.

Now, onto my opponent's case:

My opponent's value is superiority i.e. winning in a fight, but winning in a fight does not prove superiority. If a weak-framed genius fights a muscle man who can barely string words together, the genius will obviously loose; but that does not make him/her inferior to the muscle man. The genius is still smarter, and will have a much better life than the muscle man; just fighting itself cannot prove superiority. I will further prove his value of superiority in rebutting the rest of his case. His value criterion of winning in a fight I've already proven to be ineffective in my attack on his value.

For his contention one, my opponent stated that Spartans have advantages in their armors. But he argues his point by putting ninjas in the positions of Spartans. Ninjas do not need heavy armors due to the fact that they are assassins and kill with the art of stealth. You cannot prove Spartans are better because Spartans do what they do best better than the ninjas; I can put a Spartan in a ninja's position and say "good luck assassinating your objective with all your armor!" fighting head on in warfare is not the way of the ninja. Switching jobs of people to compare them do not work; it will be like comparing a hammer with a lock pick: you can smith weapons with hammers and you can pick locks with lock picks, but you cannot use a lock pick to smith weapons and say hammers are superior because hammers shape metal better than a lock pick will.
A better argument for this debate would be ‘Spartan armors serve Spartans better than ninjas' clothing serve them' in which both would be equally effective.
But something the Spartans and ninjas have in comment is they both kill, but in different ways. So I'm comparing who is more effective in the art of killing. It's a fair comparison because it's not biased to either side and I'm not putting a Spartan in the place of a ninja to compare them like my opponent.

Spartans cannot kill as efficiently as ninjas: Spartans only fight in open warfare, and they are not always successful and suffer heavy casualty, heavy armors are useful in combat, but it's not an enormous advantage as the opposing armies will likely to have good armors as well. A ninja's work is stealthy assassination, and their outfit is completely necessary for their job. When ninjas assassinate, they always take out large numbers of people with only a few of their own, suffering little too no casualty. Ninjas can also engage in assassination at any time, whereas the Spartans can only engage in battle when there is open warfare which causes damage to not only the army of Sparta by the people of Sparta as well.

For his contention two he does the same thing by putting the ninjas in the place of Spartans. Ninjas do not fight like a Spartan! Spartans are good in battles but ninjas are also good in their assassination! Ninjas are just more effective in their job because they suffer little to no casualty in their assignments, whereas Spartans suffer deaths by the thousands when in battle!

There is absolutely to confirm that a Spartan will definitely win in a battle with a ninja because it has never happened and never will. There are numerous examples of unlikely wars won by the weak side: the American Revolution is a prime example. The Americans were outnumbered 2:1 by the British in some cases, but they still won, and if you look at the statistics of both the British and the American shows that a British have 90% percent chance of wining, but the Americans still won! This shows that you cannot assume who's going to win in a battle that is never going to happen just by assumptions based on wild statistics.

And one fact that my opponent clearly missed is that the ninjas are not restricted to just clothe armors. They are completely free to wear any kind of armor! And Spartans are not necessarily stronger that a ninja in terms of strength because both their trainings are incredibly tough. Ninjas weapons are also not restricted, they can pick up a huge Flamberge anytime they wanted; they are trained in numerous weapons and can use whatever weapon that on hand, whereas a Spartan only have a sword and spear.

My opponent attack my statement of ninjas' stealth by saying that stealth wouldn't do much in a fight. I completely agree! Stealth is not for combat! Stealth is for assassination, and ninjas have training just as tough as the Spartans and knowledge of many weapons in a fight.

Furthermore, my opponent did not attack the majority of my first contention at all; in not doing so, he is agreeing with me that ninjas are fundamentally better than Spartans. The only attack he made upon my first contention is saying that ninjas cannot heal themselves in battle, but my point is that if a ninja is injured, then the ninja can heal himself with herbs, but I did not say that they have to do it during battle because ninjas can heal themselves at anytime when they are not fighting. A Spartan, on the other hand, cannot treat themselves with herbs because it's not included in their training, so if a war is going on and a Spartan gets injured, the best they can do is tie a cloth to the wound and hope that it doesn't get infected as they are waiting for the next battle.

Nor did my opponent attack my second contention of ‘ninjas have a wider variety of weapons than Spartans. Spartans weapons are suited for combat, but so are ninjas' weapons. And as ninjas are not limited to just assassination weapons, they can use any kind of weapon that deals more damage. The fact that ninjas coat their weapons with deadly poison is also an advantage: if the opponent is even scratched with the weapon, they will die. All my opponent said was that Spartans' weapons is a better offensive weapon, which I already proved to be an invalid point.

My opponent misread my third contention. I'm saying that ninjas have many choices to kill their targets, but Spartans can only kill when there is a battle. Ninjas' ways of killing also have less casualty rates than Spartans, who suffer deaths by thousands.

Finally, I'd like to say again that the thought of matching a ninja and a Spartan in a head on battle is absurd. They are two different kinds of warriors with different ways of killing. If my opponent really wants to do a match up in battle, then the better match up will be Samurai v.s. Spartan, as they are both warriors that fight head on in wars.

I have shown that ninjas are more effective in killing than Spartans, and I proved all my opponent's points to be invalid along with his attacks on my case. I have upheld my case, so I urge the judges to please vote pro.
clovenrose

Con

In response to my opponents claim that fighting is not the better way to prove that aomeone is superior to another, I'd like to say that since the MAIN FUNCTION of a spartan and a ninja is to engage in violent conflicts, how superior the two are should in fact be judged by how effectively they fufill their main functions. My opponent used debaters as an example of a situation where fighting would not prove superiority. To this I can only say: of course. The main function of a debater is to debate. I am only setting up a fair framework to judge these two warriors. They could also be judged by how well they knit, but this would be irrelevant to what their main function is. Therefore I must urge my judges to disregard what my opponent has stated about this in his attack of my value criterion.

In his response to my first contention, my opponent claimed that since spartan armor is heavy, it would therefore be useless in stealth. Stealth is simply a function of combat, however. It is one way to achieve an ultimate goal. It is NOT, however the only way to achieve a goal and this is what my opponent does not seem to understand. While a ninja may achieve one thing one way, a Spartan can achieves the goal through another way. Since these two ways are equally valid (since they both all lead to achieving the goal), my opponents statement that since armor is useless in stealth is true, but irrelavent. Armor does provide an obvious advantage, it protects the wearer. This is an advantage that only a spartan can have since a ninja can only use stealth. My point is that since a spartan can only have this advantage, it makes the spartan superior.

My opponent claimed in his response to my second contention that I am putting ninjas in the place of spartans. No, I am only trying to set up a clear framework, which if my opponent acknoweldged we could both be avoiding some of the confusion we are having. He also states that there is no way to determine a spartan will win in a battle. He gives the example of the American Revolution, saying that this proves there is no way to determine who will win a battle. However, this particular eample is clearly irrelevant. Both sides in the Amreican Revolution did not employ stealth tactics, they actually employed simple warfare, much like a Spartan. Would the Britans have won if they used Stealth? Such a question would be more relevant to the case.

My opponent claims I did not entriely attack his first contention. I did; I used a point he made in the argument to try to bring down the argument as a whole.

To end: my opponent states that matching ninja verus spartan as a whole. However, since my opponent has not offered up an alternative way to judge the two warriors, he essentially agrees. Therefore I must urge the judges to vote for the Con side. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
xiaotian-Z

Pro

Thank you for your response opponent.

To start, I'd like to point out that the main function of Spartans and ninjas is not to engage in violent conflicts; the Spartans engage in violence by fighting, but ninjas assassinate; the MAIN FUNCTION of both warriors, however, is to kill, and I'm comparing them both on a unbiased judging system, whereas by opponent insists on giving the Spartan the advantage and fight a ninja head on, which ninjas do not do. The other fact is that you cannot prove that a Spartan is going to win because the Spartans never fought ninjas or even knew of their existence, and the example I used in round four on how statistics itself cannot determine the outcome of a battle with the American revolution. my opponent tried to turn my example of debaters against me by saying that debater debate to see who is superior; let me clarify what I'm saying: lets say that the ninja is the LD debater, and the Spartan is a policy debater; you cannot prove that a policy debater is superior by having the LD debater debate policy with the policy debater. But you can see who is better by looking at their total number of wins. So my opponents value of superiority by winning in a fight cannot be looked to because it's biased and favor the Spartans.

My opponent misunderstood my attack on his first contention. The point I was making was not ‘Spartans' armor weigh them down'; but that ninjas' armor serves their purpose just as well as a Spartan's armor will, so that's a invalid contention because it only states that Spartan have armors that serves their purpose and did not mention anything about how ninjas' armors serve their purpose of assassination. My opponent accused the ninjas of only having stealth, but this is not true. The ninjas' trainings are just as tough as any Spartan training, and ninjas have knowledge of more weapons than the Spartans. My opponent stated that: if only a Spartan has a advantage and ninjas don't, then it makes Spartans superior; this is a flawed argument due to the fact that ninjas have many advantages that Spartans do not have i.e. killing people without casualty on their side, knowing how to use many weapons, knowledge of various herbs that can cure if a ninja was injured and there was no doctor around, and can kill anytime they are hired or feel like it. The advantage of armor my opponent mentioned is NOT restricted only to Spartans, as ninjas can pick up some tough steel armor anytime they wanted and the Spartan's advantage would be null and void. So the ninjas advantages far outweighs the Spartans, and according to my opponent, if a side have more advantage or advantages only they can have, then the ninjas would obviously win at that comparison.

My opponent accused me of not acknowledging the fact that he is setting up a clear framework. This is not true; I'm not agreeing to his framework because it is biased toward the Spartans. If my opponent looked to my comparison method, he will see that it is fair and not biased to anyone, and here I may mention that it is my opponent who ignored the fair method of comparison and thus having some confusion, not me.
My opponent also misunderstood my example of the American Revolution. I'm using the Revolution, as an example of how you CANNOT assume a side will win simply based on statistics, not the fact that the British or Americans did not use stealth. My opponent tried to assume that a Spartan will win based on statistics that are in Spartan's favor; well, you can't assume a battle will be won by either side without any proof, and Spartans will never fight a ninja as they were on opposite sides of the world and are now both extinct as historical warriors.

My opponent tries to bring down my first contention by attacking one point of how ninjas can't heal themselves during battle. I have proven that a ninja's knowledge of herbs is not for healing themselves during battles, but healing themselves after the battle is over when a doctor is not on hand or after their assignment is killed. Spartans can only tie bandages to wounds and hope not to get infected. The main point of my contention is that ninjas have a better training than Spartans; and since my opponent did not attack this point, he is agreeing with my first contention.

My opponent said at the end of his rebuttal that I have not offered an alternative solution to judge the two warriors so we must use his biased judging method. But I have offered a completely unbiased and fair judgment method: comparing their effectiveness in killing. In which I offered many concrete fact on why ninjas are superior to Spartans in killing (please look to our second round to see the facts). Since my opponent did not disagree to this judging method, and did not offer any valid facts of why a Spartan is superior in killing, he is agreeing that a ninja is superior.

Furthermore, my opponent did not state any more attacks on my case during his 4th round, or rebutted the majority of my attacks on his case, he is agreeing with all my attacks on his case. My case still stands, as my opponent did not offer any valid attacks on my case that I did not prove to be ineffective.

To end:
------------------------ ------------------
My case still stands whereas my opponent's I've proven to be invalid

My opponent only attacked a small portion of my case. I've attacked all of my opponent's case and proved it to be invalid.

I have successfully rebutted all my opponent's attacks.

My opponent dropped several of my arguments.

My opponent's point that a Spartan will win a fight with ninjas is based only on assumption.

I've proven that a ninja is more effective in killing whereas my opponent did not offer any facts on that at all.
------------------------------------------ -------- ------------ --------
In short, my opponent's case fell apart when he refused to use an unbiased way of judging, and I have upheld all my arguments and my case. So I urge the judges to please vote for the side with better facts and arguments, a side that has valid value and criterion, and upheld their case. And I urge the judges to please vote for pro.

Thank you Clovenrose, for having this debate with me, and it was a pleasure debating with you. Also, thank you, audience and judges, for judging this debate. I hope that you've enjoyed it. Good luck to my opponent on posting the final round!
clovenrose

Con

A few responses to m opponents attacks before I move on to voter issues. First, an issue I would like to clear up a quickly as possible to avoid any misleading remarks, I HAVE attacked my opponents case, THROUGH my framework. My opponent has spent most of his responses trying to bring down my framework. I have attacked his case and defended my case simultaneously.

Now, my opponent has claimed that armor should not be a factor in this case, since a ninja can pick up any armor he or she sees fit. However, since armor is clearly NOT a factor in stealth (you could even argue that it hinders the ability to move around silently and so forth.) Stealth is my opponents contention, yet it seems he wants to say that stealth is optional. To this I can only say that you cant have your cake and eat it too... If a ninja uses stealth, then the ninja can't use armor; It really is as simple as that.

My opponent mentioned the fact doctors are present after a battle, however he ignores the fact that the Spartans had knowledgeable doctors in the age which at the time was at the cutting edge of health care. The discoveries made by Spartans are far more significant than anything Ninjas have contributed to modern medicine.

Finally my opponents suggested alternative framework is flawed and does not take into account any exterior factors. While a ninja can use stealth, there is no reason why a Spartan can't and there is no reason why a Ninja can't use straightforward warfare. My opponents framework is abound with these types of flaws and loopholes. We need a way of judging this case that will pit the two warriors in a fair and unbiased manner. My framework does this, and my opponent has not met it.

Finally, my opponent has made claims that I have not attacked all of his contentions... To this I can only say that I have and if the judge cares to do so, he or she can clearly see that this claim is not grounded.

To conclude: My opponent did not attack my value, he has not mentioned my second contention, and he has not met my framework. For this the vote should clearly go to the Con side.

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate, and the judges!
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by rob753 4 years ago
rob753
Con the spartan shield is so heavy a pivot kick directly to the center will knock a spartan flat on his butt. Not only that but his armour is also minimal so I dunno what your talking about
Posted by xiaotian-Z 6 years ago
xiaotian-Z
you know, i have been working the crap out of myself for the berkely debate thingys. and i think i got a good aff right now... yeah...
Posted by Anger154 6 years ago
Anger154
Lol X, everyone is biased look at the vote bar, look at the other Ninjas are superior to Spartans debate people do straight markings to even clovenrose, you just did this debate to make yourself seem better about yourself X
Posted by xiaotian-Z 6 years ago
xiaotian-Z
anger154, you really are biased when voting. but i have no power over your decisions except to win people over with my debating skills. if you insist on a biased view, then i have nothing more to say...
Posted by Anger154 6 years ago
Anger154
I think clovenrose did pretty well, and no im not saying that because i think spartans are superior to ninjas X
Posted by Anger154 6 years ago
Anger154
bum...bum...bummmmm
Posted by clovenrose 6 years ago
clovenrose
wow xiao, i was completely overwhelmed! thank you for this debating experience! i hope to see you at berkeley!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by xiaotian-Z 6 years ago
xiaotian-Z
xiaotian-ZclovenroseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by mr_koreeyahnbbq 6 years ago
mr_koreeyahnbbq
xiaotian-ZclovenroseTied
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 Anger154 6 years ago
Anger154
xiaotian-ZclovenroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
xiaotian-ZclovenroseTied
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 clovenrose 6 years ago
clovenrose
xiaotian-ZclovenroseTied
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