The Instigator
Mikegj1077
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Renzzy
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

No Smoking laws. GOOD.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,761 times Debate No: 2581
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (16)

 

Mikegj1077

Pro

Ohio has enacted a no-smoking law in all public places, including bars, restaurants, VFW posts, American Legion posts. I am in favor of this law. My wife died of lung cancer at age 50 in 2005. Tobacco has killed more soldiers than agent orange, radiation exposure experiments, LSD experiments, and bullets in all the American wars since the Civil War. Tobacco is a regressive tax, hurts the poor and uneducated who smoke more. Smoking drives up the cost of health care. Smoking kills, bed fires, Divorce (can't pay bills when you have to divert money to cigarettes). Cigarette smokers are stupid…Have a cig!
Renzzy

Con

Hello Mike! Thanks for the good debate topic! I do think that smoking is bad for you (obviously), but I believe it is a right. Now to my argument.

"Ohio has enacted a no-smoking law in all public places, including bars, restaurants, VFW posts, American Legion posts. I am in favor of this law."

I don't see this law as all that great. Many people don't like smokers and second hand smoke, and many have deadly reactions to it, but there are always places that do not allow smoking for them. Now I realize that this is what the law is doing, but this law is forcing it. That's what I don't agree with. When a person starts a restaurant they have the choice to make it a smoking restaurant it a non-smoking restaurant. Some will allow it, and some won't. Those who don't allow it, good for them! Smoking is bad for you, and it will be a good place for those people who are allergic to second hand smoke to go. Those who allow it, good for them! Smoking is a right, and they have just created another place to exercise that right. Whether or not people should destroy their bodies by smoking is not for the government to regulate. We have no right to force people to stop doing something they have a right to do, such as smoking.

"My wife died of lung cancer at age 50 in 2005. Tobacco has killed more soldiers than agent orange, radiation exposure experiments, LSD experiments, and bullets in all the American wars since the Civil War."

This is all very sad, and true. Smoking destroys your body. Once again, however, choosing to smoke is a right. People who live in America today are all educated enough to know that smoking is bad for you, so it's not like it is happening by accident or out of ignorance. Even if they did not know (however unlikely this is) they would be bound to have someone close to them tell them that it is bad. The fact of the matter is this: even though people we know and love are killing themselves by smoking, IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO SMOKE.

I personally hate smoking. I would not mind at all if everyone on earth quit smoking. I am not going to make them quit. Why? It would be taking away freedom. Do we want the government taking freedoms away? Of course not. For those of you who are allergic to second hand smoke, there is always that other restaurant that does not allow it. For those of you that do smoke, go ahead. It is not my concern what you do with your body unless you're using it to deliberately harm mine.

Thanks,

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 1
Mikegj1077

Pro

"When a person starts a restaurant they have the choice to make it a smoking restaurant… Some will allow it, and some won't…Smoking is a right…"

There are three main considerations here. There is the health issue, the annoyance issue, and there is what I will describe as peer acquisition of new, mostly young smokers who begin their smoking careers because it was cool (usually in public, within groups, where these urges feed on themselves)….The health issue is obvious, so is the enormous cost of uninsured smoking related illnesses. As we move toward a single payer system the cost to the tax payer will be even more pronounced….Smoking is not a right, unless you consider people acting of their own free will in free exchange with others have a right to do things not expressly prohibited by law. These types of "rights" are legislative in nature and are easily reversed, unlike a constitutional amendment.

"they have just created another place to exercise that right."

Places where certain rights are permitted are defined by the legislature.

"Whether or not people should destroy their bodies by smoking is not for the government to regulate."

If non-smoking tax payers where not required to pick up the medical bill for uninsured smokers with smoking related illnesses, I might tend to agree with you.

"People who live in America today are all educated enough to know that smoking is bad for you, so it's not like it is happening by accident or out of ignorance."

I disagree. Smokers are much more prevalent among the uneducated and poor, the very people who have little or no private health care--which means the tax payer will pick up the tab (as we move, unfortunately, to a single payer system).

"It would be taking away freedom. Do we want the government taking freedoms away?"

It would be taking away a nuisance and a health hazard.

"For those of you who are allergic to second hand smoke, there is always that other restaurant that does not allow it."

In practice, there are few non-smoking bars and restaurants. Besides, why should the non-smoker be the one to move? Smokers are rude. They brought this on themselves
Renzzy

Con

"There is the health issue, the annoyance issue, and there is what I will describe as peer acquisition of new, mostly young smokers who begin their smoking careers because it was cool (usually in public, within groups, where these urges feed on themselves)….The health issue is obvious, so is the enormous cost of uninsured smoking related illnesses. As we move toward a single payer system the cost to the tax payer will be even more pronounced….Smoking is not a right, unless you consider people acting of their own free will in free exchange with others have a right to do things not expressly prohibited by law."

The health issue is not our concern. What they do to their bodies is stupid, yes, but it not our concern. Yes, it is dumb that we have to pay for them. I hate it just as much as you do. I don't think that is is as bad as you say it is, though, because hospitals will deny them some health care if they cannot afford it, and the hospital itself will pay for a lot of the bill. We only get left with a portion to pay.

This, I think, is simply one of the downsides to living in a free country. This country was founded on the idea that everyone would be able to persue life, liberty and happiness, and there is nothing legally wrong with smoking. Therefore if smoking makes you happy, then you are free do smoke. The government cannot deny anyone this right, and therefore smoking is a right. So yes, I do consider people acting of their own free will on things that are not expressly prohibited by law to be ok. In the case of smoking, to be exercising a right.

When it comes to the annoyance issue, I guess all I have to say is get over it. There is always that place that doesn't allow smoking. So what if non-smokers are the ones moving around? They are the ones choosing not to exercise a right. It is a good choice and it will save you your body, but we are the ones choosing not to exercise a right, so we are the ones moving. Besides, most restaurants have non-smoking sections anyway, so at generally only involves moving from one bench to the next, which is not that hard.

"These types of "rights" are legislative in nature and are easily reversed, unlike a constitutional amendment."

Not really, because it would be removing one of our foundational decisions, that is, the persuit of happiness. If you take away that right, you take away a pert of the freedom this country was founded on.

"Places where certain rights are permitted are defined by the legislature."

The right to smoke is kind of like the right to free speech. You can do it almost anywhere, but it is common courtesy not to do it in some places. I would say that smokers are generally pretty good about where they smoke, and if someone does not want them to in such-and-such a place they wont. In restaurants where it is allowed, then it is not a problem.

"If non-smoking tax payers where not required to pick up the medical bill for uninsured smokers with smoking related illnesses, I might tend to agree with you."

We don't pay for all of it, but yes, it sucks, I agree. This does not change the fact that they have the right to do it, however, and we don't have the right to stop them. We want to, but we won't have the right to.

"Smokers are much more prevalent among the uneducated and poor, the very people who have little or no private health care--which means the tax payer will pick up the tab (as we move, unfortunately, to a single payer system)."

If you ask ANYBODY you come up to in any given place on any given day, I can almost guarantee that they will be able to tell you smoking is bad for you. I say almost because there are always those out there who really don't know or are in denial. This number in NEXT TO NOTHING. Anyone with any access to any kind of media knows that smoking is bad. There are even billboards all over that say that smoking is bad, so arguing that people don't know is really a weak argument.

"It would be taking away a nuisance and a health hazard."

If it bothers you, stay away from it. In most cases, it is not the health of non-smokers in jeopardy. If it is, go somewhere where smoking is not allowed.

"In practice, there are few non-smoking bars and restaurants. Besides, why should the non-smoker be the one to move? Smokers are rude. They brought this on themselves"

Even the restaurants that do allow smoking generally have non-smoking sections. Smokers can be rude, but I have found that generally they are not. They have brought nothing upon themselves. Do you want the government to ban you from talking? I'm sure you have said something against it in you life, and that makes you rude too. You have brought it upon yourself, right? Of course not. You have the right to free speech. It may not be in the constitution, but it is definitely a right.

Thanks,

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 2
Mikegj1077

Pro

"The health issue is not our concern. What they do to their bodies is stupid, yes, but it not our concern. Yes, it is dumb that we have to pay for them."

It's more than dumb. It's a crime! Health issues always find their way into the pockets of the tax payer. I don't argue that one has the right to his own stupidity. My argument is that no one has a right to heap the collateral effects of that stupidity on others. I'm not talking about an act of God, or catastrophic illness through no fault of their own. Smoking, like obesity and homosexuality, are life choices. Assume the risks as well as the outcome.

"…hospitals will deny them some health care if they cannot afford it, and the hospital itself will pay for a lot of the bill. We only get left with a portion to pay."

Wrong. We get stuck with the whole bill. When hospitals eat an uncollected bill, that cost gets spread around to the paying customer and insurance companies (raising premiums or reducing payouts).

"This, I think, is simply one of the downsides to living in a free country. This country was founded on the idea that everyone would be able to persue life, liberty and happiness, and there is nothing legally wrong with smoking."

Again, there is nothing legally wrong with smoking unless the legislature outlaws or restricts it. I would like to live in a smoke free world. I consider that as a right. I would like not to be burdened by health costs generated by people who fail to take care of themselves. That is another right.

"Therefore if smoking makes you happy, then you are free do smoke."

Fornication makes me happy. Do I have a right to do that in public?

"The government cannot deny anyone this right, and therefore smoking is a right. So yes, I do consider people acting of their own free will on things that are not expressly prohibited by law…."

That last part is a quote from me. It assumes certain activities can be prohibited by law. So government can deny it.

"When it comes to the annoyance issue, I guess all I have to say is get over it. There is always that place that doesn't allow smoking. So what if non-smokers are the ones moving around? They are the ones choosing not to exercise a right."

Your logic assumes smoking is a right, which it clearly is not. Are you challenging the authority of the legislature to enact no-smoking laws? It is time for smokers to feel like second class citizens and told to go elsewhere if "you" don't like it.

"It is a good choice and it will save you your body, but we are the ones choosing not to exercise a right…"

Do I have a right not to pay higher taxes to cover smokers and other foolish people engaging in activities of their own free will?

"Besides, most restaurants have non-smoking sections anyway, so at generally only involves moving from one bench to the next, which is not that hard."

Moving from one bench to another does not reduce atmospheric second hand smoke. Bars cannot keep smoke from non-smokers. It's impossible.

"…it would be removing one of our foundational decisions, that is, the persuit of happiness….

Pursuit of happiness is too broad to allow for specific activity. It would make me happy to strangle Michael Moore, the fat communist anti-American movie producer, but I can't because there are laws against that.

"If you take away that right, you take away a pert of the freedom this country was founded on."

But you opened up a whole new set of rights for non-smokers. (I'm not conceding it's a right).

"The right to smoke is kind of like the right to free speech. You can do it almost anywhere, but it is common courtesy not to do it in some places."

What? Free speech is protected in the Bill of Rights. Smoking is not.

"I would say that smokers are generally pretty good about where they smoke…"

An utterly false statement. Smokers are rude and are even offended and angered if a non-smoker complains.

"If it bothers you, stay away from it. In most cases, it is not the health of non-smokers in jeopardy. If it is, go somewhere where smoking is not allowed."

Fortunately, it is now the smokers who must go somewhere else.
Renzzy

Con

"It's more than dumb. It's a crime! Health issues always find their way into the pockets of the tax payer."

True, but so does the bill of single mothers on welfare. They have the right to keep having kids, thus increasing the amount we pay in our taxes. Once again, I have nothing against this, but it is still comparable. Shouldn't the mothers consider not having any more children so us tax payers won't pay so much? Of course not. They have the right to as many children as they want. There is no law that expressly prohibits the right to have numerous children, so they can have as many as they want. Smokers can smoke all they want, because it is not expressly prohibited by law. Smoking is a freedom. Freedom is a right. Therefore smoking is a right. Simple logic.

"Wrong. We get stuck with the whole bill. When hospitals eat an uncollected bill, that cost gets spread around to the paying customer and insurance companies (raising premiums or reducing payouts)."

I apologize, because you are correct. We do pay it all. That, however, does not change my argument and its validity. Whether or not we pay more does not change the fact that removing smoking is infringing on a right. If A then B, if B then C, therefore if A the C. Look it up, it is a valid logical equation.

"Again, there is nothing legally wrong with smoking unless the legislature outlaws or restricts it."

Exactly, and if legislature outlaws or restricts it it is infringing on the right to freedom. There is nothing, then, that the government can do to smokers without narrowing what the right to freedom means.

"Fornication makes me happy. Do I have a right to do that in public?"

There are laws against fornication. There are laws expressly prohibiting fornication. There are also decency laws that need be considered. There are none of these laws or the like that have anything prohibiting smoking. So no, you do not have the right to do that in public.

"It assumes certain activities can be prohibited by law. So government can deny it."

Smoking is a freedom. Freedom is a right. Therefore smoking is a right. The government cannot deny the right to freedom, and cannot therefore deny the freedom to smoke.

"Your logic assumes smoking is a right, which it clearly is not. Are you challenging the authority of the legislature to enact no-smoking laws?"

Are you encouraging the limitation of freedoms? The government can legally do what they want with things that are not constitutionally protected. Is smoking constitutionally protected? Nope. So yes, they can do what they want with it. That is not what the debate is about though. This debate is on whether on not they SHOULD restrict it, so I come down to my logical equation again: Smoking is a freedom, freedom is a right, therefore smoking is a right. Can they restrict it? Yes. Should they restrict it? Absolutely not. So no, I am not challenging their power to do so, but the wisdom in it and the constitutionality of it. I mean, as long as we are limiting freedoms, why stop at smoking?

"Do I have a right not to pay higher taxes to cover smokers and other foolish people engaging in activities of their own free will?"

That is a silly question. Of course you do not have the right to stop paying parts of your taxes. Just because you don't like what you are paying for does not mean you don't have to pay it. Smoking is a freedom, refraining from taxes is not.

"Moving from one bench to another does not reduce atmospheric second hand smoke. Bars cannot keep smoke from non-smokers. It's impossible."

No, but it reduces it and gets you out of the direct smoke. If you are not violently reactive to it, this will help. If you are, go somewhere where they don't allow smoking.

"Pursuit of happiness is too broad to allow for specific activity. It would make me happy to strangle Michael Moore, the fat communist anti-American movie producer, but I can't because there are laws against that."

If there are no laws against it, and it makes you happy, then it can be considered pursuing happiness. Killing someone, like you said, is illegal, so whether or not you would like to kill someone, you cannot.

"But you opened up a whole new set of rights for non-smokers."

What? You did not explain, so I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

"What? Free speech is protected in the Bill of Rights. Smoking is not."

Smoking is a freedom. This country was founded a FREE country, and therefore restricting smoking freedoms would be narrowing the definition of freedom. NOT GOOD. You think no smoking laws are good? Then you think restricting freedoms is good. Just wait till it gets to restricting the freedom to doing something you like to do, then it won't seem so good.

"Smokers are rude and are even offended and angered if a non-smoker complains."

I know more smokers then I can count on two hands, and none of the are like you describe them. If you ask them to please smoke outside, they say ok. If you ask them not to smoke on your property, they say ok. Now obviously not all smokers are like this, but anyone can be ornery about anything they don't like, so it is not fair to point fingers at people who smoke.

"Fortunately, it is now the smokers who must go somewhere else."

Like I sais earlier, I hate smoking. I would not mind it if everyone quit smoking tomorrow. It pains me to see liberties being restricted by the government because the majority does not exercise the liberty in question.

Lets say there is a restaurant that serves pizza. They are at liberty to sell all the pizza they want, but all of the sudden most people do not like pizza, and some people are allergic to cheese, so the government makes selling pizza illegal. What are the people who like pizza (like me and I would assume you. If you don't like it, just work with me) supposed to do? Well, just get over it, because the majority says so. What the people are forgetting, though, is that selling and eating pizza is a freedom, but because most people don't like it they took the freedom away. It is kind of messed up.

The same goes for smoking. It is a freedom, but because most people don't like smoking, they are trying to ban it. It is kind of messed up. My logic stands: Smoking is a freedom, freedom is a right, therefore smoking is a right.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
"No, because sixteen year olds are not of the legal age to smoke or drink. If you are allowed to do either of those things, I should be allowed to sell you the means to do so."

But a 21-year-old is of drinking age, and also to drive. Are laws prohibiting open alcoholic containers in moving vehicles unconstitutional? No, if an activity or possession of an item is legal in one place, then it doesn't necessarily follow that that item or activity is permissible elsewhere. I can own a gun, but I can't bring it into a courtroom.

"I have no problem with having smokers "walk" to another restaurant, where we could smoke. But this law means that we would have no such establishment to walk to. THAT is what I take issue with."

You do have a place to walk to. Home.

"Well, I'm debating whether the laws should be ABLE to say that."

Yes, they are able. No-smoking laws have been around for a few years, and they have withstood legal challenges.

"I have broken no law, and I pay my taxes. Disagreeing with law is not the same thing as breaking it. (That seems like an obvious distinction to me.)"

If you defy the no-smoking law, you are a law-breaker. I was debating the constitutionality and correctness of the law, and I believe I prevailed in both. Your debate basically comes down to the fact that you are angry with the law.

"My argument was that we don't need to give the uninsured government assistance, so that the taxpayers are not responsible for them."

America takes care of its sick, lame and lazy. And it takes care of the addicted, fucked and dumb. The reality is, social liberals will force our government to take care of them all.
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
"If a bar owner wants to cater to 16-year-olds, does he have the right to sell them liquor or cigarettes?"

No, because sixteen year olds are not of the legal age to smoke or drink. If you are allowed to do either of those things, I should be allowed to sell you the means to do so.

"Your time-tested method favored the smokers. Now it's reversed. Now the smokers can do the complaining for the next 20 years. Let the smokers walk."

I have no problem with having smokers "walk" to another restaurant, where we could smoke. But this law means that we would have no such establishment to walk to. THAT is what I take issue with.

"Because the laws says they can't. "

Well, I'm debating whether the laws should be ABLE to say that.

"As a law breaker, I understand why you'd make such a statement. I prefer to comply with the tax code and pay my income, property and sales tax."

I have broken no law, and I pay my taxes. Disagreeing with law is not the same thing as breaking it. (That seems like an obvious distinction to me.) My argument was that we don't need to give the uninsured government assistance, so that the taxpayers are not responsible for them.
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
"If a business owner wants to cater to smokers, that is his right to do so."

That is not his right. Again, the legislature, not the bar owner, has authority to restrict or prohibit smoking in public, and that includes privately owned businesses (known as places of public accommodation). If a bar owner wants to cater to 16-year-olds, does he have the right to sell them liquor or cigarettes?

"If someone wants to avoid secondhand smoke, they can fall back on the time-tested method of not going into smoking restaurants."

Your time-tested method favored the smokers. Now it's reversed. Now the smokers can do the complaining for the next 20 years. Let the smokers walk.

"Why can't business owners satisfy the wants of smokers?"

Because the laws says they can't.

"…if you don't like seeing tax dollars spent on uninsured smokers, then stop giving them tax dollars."

As a law breaker, I understand why you'd make such a statement. I prefer to comply with the tax code and pay my income, property and sales tax.
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
If a business owner wants to cater to smokers, that is his right to do so. If someone wants to avoid secondhand smoke, they can fall back on the time-tested method of not going into smoking restaurants.

I live in Ohio, and a number of restaurants and bars in my area VOLUNTARILY banned smoking in their establishments. They wanted to attract the "smoke-free" crowd. Which is good; they saw a demographic that was just itching for restaurants that would cater to them. But shouldn't the other side have options too? Why can't business owners satisfy the wants of smokers? Why don't smokers deserve THEIR own eateries? Non-smokers have them.

And if you don't like seeing tax dollars spent on uninsured smokers, then stop giving them tax dollars.
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
Thanks Kelp. You can review a debate, offer corrections on the fly, and leave us a little more informed. All in 10 minutes. And no one is offended!!!
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
I'm very confused. I didn't see a good response to Pro's counterexample of fornication.

A law was passed against public fornication
Why was no law passed against smoking?

Laws are arbitrary. They can be passed and they can be repealed. Laws are also impositions on our freedom for our protection.

There's really nothing protecting smokers. The evidence Con cited as to why smoking is protected applies to all sorts of things that are outlawed.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
I did not address all of your points individually, but my argument applies to all of yours. It's a universal argument.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by MOMark 6 years ago
MOMark
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
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 PeaceFinger 9 years ago
PeaceFinger
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
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 midgetman2 9 years ago
midgetman2
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by OyVey 9 years ago
OyVey
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
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 Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ref2thecore 9 years ago
Ref2thecore
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
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 oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
Mikegj1077RenzzyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30