The Instigator
fresnoinvasion
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
102 Points

No topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 17 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,776 times Debate No: 7012
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (17)

 

fresnoinvasion

Pro

I have won this debate round
Logical-Master

Con

Prove it.
Debate Round No. 1
fresnoinvasion

Pro

Thanks for accepting,

"Prove it"

-I am a psychic, and I am telling you, I have won this debate round.

Now we will look to all the reasons why debate in itself is flawed and must be changed. I presented that case that I have won this debate round and it was not taken as fact, however my opponent found it necessary to make me prove this fact. If he finds my answer inadequate, he will surely debate me on it.

This mindset is all too prevalent in debate today. "Prove it", prove what? That I have won this debate round? Must we question everything that we hear? What is the overall impact of me winning this debate round? Are people going to die? No. There is absolutely no reason to debate the fact whether I have won this debate round or not.

These "prove it" mentality ruins the institution of what debate was meant to be

3 Independent reasons on why modern debate is bad-

1. It is not discussion
- Modern debate forces one to take a definate "pro" or "con stance on an issue, however life does not work this way.
A) This strips our minds of being capable of believing that a mixture of the two stances can be true. We being to see things in a "black and white" way, however the world is not really like that. Seeing the world within the spectrum of only black and white we begin to believe that it is either "this or that" and takes away our belief that compromises are possible. Compromises have time and time again proven themselves to keep the world going. Just look in a US history book and you can see that all the greatest advancements in our history were because of compromises. When debate begins to spread, with more people engaging in the activity, more and more people will begin to see things as "black or white" thus losing touch of the compromises that move the world along. The Negative team wishing to debate me on an issue, and not willing to merely compromise proves he falls under the foul institution that debate has become. I wish my opponent had said something such as "Why is that so?" because answering in question form stimulates discussion. However, an argumentative "prove it" stimulates debate.
B) Discussions are key to moving the world forward. True education comes from a discussions that truly delves into both sides of an issue. Inherent biases are lost, and we become a more understanding human race.

2. Nietzsche- Ressentiment

Debates structure of harms and solvency is founded in ressentiment. Ressentiment finds pain in everything and hates rather than respects suffering and misfortune. Debates demonizing of the status quo functions in the same way.

Nietzsche- "Inability to admire, respect or love... The memory of traces is itself full of hatred... even in the most tender and most loving memories... they reproach the being whose memory they pretend to cherish... What is most striking in the man of ressentiment is... his disgusting malevolence, his capacity for disparagement... He does not even respect his friends or even his enemies. He does not even respect misfortune or its causes... the man of ressentiment must turn misfortune into something mediocre, he must recriminate and distribute blame: look at his inclination to play down the value of causes, to make misfortune "someone's fault". The way in which the slave takes his misfortunes seriously shows a difficult digestion and a base way of thinking which is incapable of feeling respect"

The ressentiment for the present makes extinction desireable. We constantly want to fix problems, when that is solved we then want to solve another, then another arises, and another. We function in an endless cycle of fixing these problems and hate the present when we cannot. Debate makes this mindset worse by setting up an institution where we can gripe and complain about the status quo. And only allow our point of view to be heard.

3. Only allows certain discourse

The traditional framework of policy debate assumes that discourse is a neutral medium through which thoughts are transmitted. This whitewashes the fact that discourses are produced such that they define what can and cannot be said through a violent process of control and exclusion

Roland Bleiker- "The doorkeepers ...make sure that the discipline's discursive boundaries remain intact. Discourses,...are subtle mechanisms that frame our thinking process. They determine the limits of what can be thought, talked, and written of in a normal and rational way. In every society the production of discourses is controlled, selected, organized, and diffused by certain procedures. They create systems of exclusion that elevate one group of discourses to a hegemonic status while condemning others to exile...They explain, to return to Nietzsche, why "all things that live long are gradually so saturated with reason that their origin in unreason thereby becomes improbable."28 Academic disciplines are powerful mechanisms to direct and control the production and diffusion of discourses. They establish the rules of intellectual exchange and define the methods, techniques, and instruments that are considered proper for the pursuit of knowledge. Within these margins, each discipline recognizes true and false propositions based on the standards of evaluation it established to assess them."

Modern politics wrongly alienates difference as evil because of its quest to maintain a unified identity. This creates a feeling of responsibility to eradicate the Other for the Self
Connoly in 2k2

"The modern normal, responsible individual can redirect resent�ment against the human condition into the self, first, by treating the rational, self-interested, free, and principled individual as morally responsible for willful deviations from normal identity and, sec�ond, by treating that in itself and other selves which falls below the threshold of responsibility as a natural defect in need of conquest or conversion, punishment or love. The modern individual, in short, contains resentment against the human condition in its own iden�tity, and this comes out most clearly in the intensity of the resent�ment it expresses against any others who deviate significantly from that identity. For such deviations, if they proliferate, make the self-identical self appear to be a sucker for accepting the disciplines and restraints required to maintain itself in this way. Only if these de�viations are false or evil can it see itself as true."

In debate we only allow certain language, certain beliefs are always favored over others. Right winged debaters become vote bombed while some beliefs automatically receive votes merely because they share the same beliefs. When we suppress the thoughts of some beliefs we create an "us V them" mentality and allows for the worst of human right violations.

This one last debate should be the end of debate and the creation of discussion. Your votes here today are what will truly change the world by halting the "black and white" debate and allowing for discussion that allows us to see both sides of an issue, and compromise thereafter. These discussions will allow "non-traditional" discourse so that all of our thoughts and ideas do not have to be whitewashed and conformed to the status quo in order to even be listened to. Not only that, we signify that we will let nature work itself out and we will not hold ressentment for the present, but live and embrace ever second. Thank you.
Logical-Master

Con

RE: "-I am a psychic, and I am telling you, I have won this debate round."

My opponent testifies that he is psychic, however, accepting testimony from the debaters in the debate is injudicious given that the debaters involved have the most incentive to lie. Ergo, you are not to accept PRO's testimony. Rather, if an independent party claims that he is psychic, it will be a different matter entirely.

RE: "Now we will look to all the reasons why debate in itself is flawed and must be changed."

No, we won't seriously look at those reasons. Kritiks in general are smelly and illogical. The fact of the matter is that the resolution asserts there is no topic. In R1, my opponent claimed to have won the debate. Exactly what does "Modern debate is bad" have to do with the topic or his round 1? Absolutely nothing. Thus, it is rather clear that my opponent has succumbed to the "moving the goal post" fallacy. I am not obligated to respond to his complaint about modern debate and have already won this debate on the basis that my opponent refuses to uphold his burden or debate on the actual subject for that matter. What my opponent has pulled is the equivalent to two people playing chess and one of those players claiming that the game is too hard, therefore he/she is the victor. In short, it's absolute nonsense.

----------->ALL IRRELEVANT MATTERS ARE POSTED BELOW

Now with that said, I shall pull a rabbit out of my hat and refute the nonsense which my opponent had propagated anyway.

RE:"This mindset is all too prevalent in debate today. "Prove it", prove what? That I have won this debate round? Must we question everything that we hear? What is the overall impact of me winning this debate round? Are people going to die? No. There is absolutely no reason to debate the fact whether I have won this debate round or not.

1) Yes, we ought to question everything we hear. Through questioning everything, we allow our knowledge on everything a chance to expand. As Samuel Johnson once said, "Knowledge is more than equivalent to force." Knowledge is power; the more knowledgeable we are, the more powerful we are. To add: It is because of knowledge that we are able to do great things. More often than not, knowledge even allows us the opportunity to prevent people from dying (granted, it can do the opposite, but the fact that it possesses such great capabilities is still noteworthy).
2) The impact of PRO winning this debate round would allow him the opportunity to expand your knowledge on matters in many ways.
3) Yes, people possibly could die or perhaps put themselves on a path to failure. Let us take for instance this debate. Here, my opponent has attempted to express the epitome of wit through "deceiving" me into accepting a seemingly easy debate so that he could pull off what one of the audience members claims to be an absurd kritik. However, as I've expressed in the comment section, taking this approach on this matter in arenas where argumentation ability is taken rather seriously (court rooms and presidential campaigns) can easily result in utter failure and perhaps even humiliation. If PRO wins this debate, he shall only continue to encourage this absurd debate tactic and will perhaps pay the price in a far more unforgiving arena in the future. Not to mention that using it in mere competition arenas is detrimental as well as has already been implied with the chess example I provided.

RE:"These "prove it" mentality ruins the institution of what debate was meant to be"

Oh really? In that case, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult for PRO to cough up some evidence that shows what the institution of debate was actually "meant to be" and that requesting proof actually opposes it.

RE: 3. "Modern debate is not discussion"

1)Modern debate that forces individuals to take a definite "pro" or "con" stance are debates which are started for the purpose of competition; they are not debates which serve the purpose of finding the truth or compromising; they are debates which are simply started to test one another individual's skill. Now if my opponent specifically meant this website, there are some who use it to compete with another and test out their skills whereas there are others who sum there positions up quite nicely and claim to be PRO. Those who disagree in even the slightest way take up these debates. Those who aren't sure whether or not they disagree have no desire to debate. It's a rather simple process and one in which compromise has managed to come about, given that debaters have shown themselves to be convinced by the position of another individual in the past.

Of course, the above is merely applicable to formal debating. When individuals debate informally, there is no "official" pro or con stance being labled as the topic as we see here. It is merely two individuals randomly engaging one another in an argument. Now based on my opponent's logic, one would think that informal debates insure many compromises because of the lack of official labeling. However, through merely taking one quick peek into the forums on this website (especially the politics and religion board), debates are ongoing compromises are nearly non existent. Thus, this would suggest the lack of compromises does not come from where PRO has claimed them to come from.

2) As for me wishing to debate PRO on the issue through saying "prove it" at the beginning, we could just as easily turn this around and make PRO's logic applicable to himself. Indeed, as PRO simply stated that he "won the debate" at the beginning. No insistence upon compromising or anything. Rather, my opponent expressed himself as closed minded to other ideas given that he made a conclusion before the debate even started. Essentially, if I have fallen under this foul institution which my opponent claims to exist, then as has my opponent.

3) Debating allows equal opportunity for education granted that its a sport which relies on research. Not to mention that encourages individuals to think logically. To add, as we can see in formal debating, debaters are required to debate both sides of the issues they are given. In terms of bias, one is capable of debating without being manipulated by their own bias. This is because bias does not stem from debate itself, but rather one's own worldview manifested from one's upbringing.

RE:"Debate makes this mindset worse by setting up an institution where we can gripe and complain about the status quo. And only allow our point of view to be heard."

If this is the case, then my opponent must note the following: At the moment, he is debating in this very debate, thus is merely encouraging what he posits as being detrimental to society. Such a contradiction cannot be allowed Thus, he has no choice but to quit this debate immediately via forfeit (in other words, don't respond in the remaining rounds). If he is to do this, he shall be representing this argument. If he does not do this, he shall merely be negating it.

Let me elaborate: If there is an evil which justice can never win over, what will you do? Will you dirty yourself by going evil against evil? Or will you follow justice, hence following your beliefs to the very end? No matter what decision you make, evil will remain. The same is applicable here: One cannot claim that debate is bad while upholding debate just as one cannot say abortion is bad while upholding abortion

RE: " Only allows certain discourse"

We would still be suppressing the thoughts of some beliefs regardless of whether or not we were to debate as we do now. Take for instance this debate in itself. My opponent's desires that this be the last debate and that we insist upon discussions in the future so that we may compromise. Little does he know that this action actually encourages suppresses the thoughts of one belief and that is the belief that "modern debate is good." Ergo, contradiction . . . ergo refuted argument.

Engage . . .
Debate Round No. 2
fresnoinvasion

Pro

At this point in the debate you probably hate me and want to vote against me, but wait, it was all strategy.

The debate had "no topic" I presented the case of "I have won this debate round". He says "prove it" so i go on this antic about how debate is generally bad yada yada, which wasted probably an hour of my opponents life. But it was all for NOTHING.

The negative screwed himself over in his last speech

He says that all things said about how "debate is bad" is "IRRELEVENT" in this debate round. Stick him to that...

He makes the topic about whether or not I have won this debate round or not, which i am totally fine with. Being that I am "for" this resolution..

I was "for" no topic. Yet the negative made the debate have a topic (whether or not i have won). Therefore I have won this debate round because I was the only one to keep the argument having no topic. You can't vote for him for being against "i have won this debate round" because we are arguing NO TOPIC at all. I was merely stating the fact that I have won the debate round, because I didn't talk about anything. Thus fulfilling what was needed in order to debate a topic of no topic.

Now hes going to say "but he said "i won the round"". This doesnt matter. I did not present a topic. It was the mere truth at the time, i was FOR having NO TOPIC. So by saying I have won the round was merely pointing out the fact that I have maintained having no topic. He on the other hand changed the topic from being about no topic, to being about whether or not I have won.

Now you can stop complaining about the K everyone watching.

To my competitor- Your K debating was pretty awesome. Even if it was just a decoy...
Logical-Master

Con

RE: "At this point in the debate you probably hate me and want to vote against me, but wait, it was all strategy."

You need not worry about this. Anyone who debates me is guaranteed more votes. Those are the laws of the debate.org, as evident by my win ratio. ;)

RE: "The debate had "no topic" I presented the case of "I have won this debate round". He says "prove it" so i go on this antic about how debate is generally bad yada yada, which wasted probably an hour of my opponents life. But it was all for NOTHING."

"I have won this debate" is not a case. It is simply making a claim without having any premises for it. My opponent failed on the grounds that he didn't actually debate in a debate. That is all.

RE: "I was "for" no topic. Yet the negative made the debate have a topic (whether or not i have won). Therefore I have won this debate round because I was the only one to keep the argument having no topic."

1) False. There is a topic. If there were not a topic, the topic area (which my opponent personally filled out by the way) would be blank and this debate would not have been initiated in the first place. In other words, "No Topic" is a topic in itself. If my opponent's burden is to prove that there is no topic, he is doomed before the start granted that he placed information under the topic area which every instigator fills out. Thus, it is ironic that my opponent would say that he was the only one to keep the argument having no topic when he was the one who made the topic in the first place.

2) My opponent is (intentionally) supplying false information. He was in fact for a topic in the previous round and that was "modern debate is bad" Thus, based on his logic (or lack of rather), he has essentially conceded to my position which he claims I have.

3) How is one really to conclude that I made the topic on whether or not PRO has won the debate based on me insisting that PRO prove what he stated? I was simply asking PRO to prove why he won. Given his so-called clarification
in this round, this would translate to me insisting that he prove he was upholding there being no topic. My intention was simply to learn how he won. It was nothing else and the lack of evidence supports this.

RE: "So by saying I have won the round was merely pointing out the fact that I have maintained having no topic. He on the other hand changed the topic from being about no topic, to being about whether or not I have won."

For the sheer heck of things, lets think about what my opponent is saying for a second:

He is insisting that because he said he has won the debate round, he was maintaining the position that there was no topic, but in order for there to be no topic, there must be no positions. In order for there to be no topic, one cannot maintain anything. The fact that my opponent confesses to having maintained something in this debate proves that he acknowledges that there was a topic. And if we look at the mere fact that my opponent provided a "topic" in the next round, it all makes plenty of sense.

Now matter how you look at it, my opponent has lost this debate considerably.

I now await round 4.
Debate Round No. 3
fresnoinvasion

Pro

I have won, thus all viewers should vote for me
Logical-Master

Con

PRO seems to have forgotten the essential point to debate and that is to ARGUE. He has chosen not to ARGUE, thus drops my his entire case as well as my arguments, thus has conceded victory to me.

Even with such an obvious win, it's pretty hilarious that I'm still not going to get the most votes. :D
Debate Round No. 4
fresnoinvasion

Pro

"PRO seems to have forgotten the essential point to debate and that is to ARGUE. He has chosen not to ARGUE, thus drops my his entire case as well as my arguments, thus has conceded victory to me."

It seems as if my opponents DNA has forgotten an essential portion to being a human, the brain stem.

Let me refer you to the fact that I do not and have not wanted a topic in this debate. But the pesky negative speaker keeps pestering about this topic of whether I can prove that I have won or not. He took the debate knowing that if he brought up a topic, I would win. I didn't want to ARGUE I didn't want to take a side and ARGUE. I was FOR having NO TOPIC. And throughout the debate have proven that I don't want to debate a topic. Being that I am FOR not having a topic, I have fulfilled my burden, therefore his entire case is unnecessary here today and the mere fact he brought up the arguments warrants him to lose.
Logical-Master

Con

RE: "It seems as if my opponents DNA has forgotten an essential portion to being a human, the brain stem."

My opponent can provide as many personal attacks as he wishes to provide . . . however, this will not change the fact that his position has been refuted entirely.

RE: "Let me refer you to the fact that I do not and have not wanted a topic in this debate."

Let me refer my opponent to the fact that through filling out the topic section that every instigator fills out, he has created a topic, regardless of whether or not he wanted it.

RE: "But the pesky negative speaker keeps pestering about this topic of whether I can prove that I have won or not."

Of course, as this is the purpose of debate. There is a reason this site is called DEBATE.org.

RE: "He took the debate knowing that if he brought up a topic, I would win. "

I knew no such thing nor of what my opponent had intended to argue. However, even considering his logic here, he has failed to provide any reason as to why me doing no more than insisting that he prove the claim he made in the first round would equate to me making bringing up a topic. To add, even if it did, it wouldn't matter considering that my opponent had brought up a topic both through creating this debate and wishing to insist that the topic to this debate was "Modern debate is bad" during round 2.

RE: "I didn't want to ARGUE"

The only way there is to win a debate is to argue. Ladies and gentleman, this admission speaks for itself.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent's argument is that because there is no topic and he has upheld there being no topic throughout the debate, he should be declared the winner.

However, as I've shown, not only did my opponent concede to there being a topic through placing something in the TOPIC section before this debate began, not only has my opponent failed to prove how me saying "prove it" proves that I was the one to make this debate have a topic, not only does it not add up that my opponent would argue on the grounds that "modern debate is bad" as his topic (as shown in R2), not only has PRO acknowledged there being a topic (as I had shown in R3) even based on his logic, but we must keep in mind that my opponent essentially dropped my entire case, wasted his R4 and insisted upon himself being correct with the same previously refuted information in R5. To add, throughout the course of this debate, PRO ended up changing his argument twice and he has confessed to having no desire to argue while in a debate. For all of these reasons, it is rather clear that his case fails on all grounds.

I rest my case. Thanks for the debate. :D
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Also. Debaters are often given the label of being elitists or massive bigots. I don't particularly agree with that opinion, yet when I look at the comment section in this debate I see four different posts from three different debaters simply conveying ad hominems at others. I doubt that type of discourse really helps this community.....
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
First off I don't see a framework for why to reject debate. Secondly I don't understand how you, fresnoinvasion, avoid this Kritik. You acknowledge modern debate being bad yet you are functioning inside the very system that you oppose. This seems rather problematic especially when there are alternatives, such as forums, which you could be using.

Third, I'm just not sure how your advocacy, discussion, avoids any of the implications you're talking about. Do I magically avoid an Us vs. them dichotomy when I start discussing instead of debating? I'd argue the world of discussion allows for just as much dichotomy.

Additionally on that point. I'm not sure how all discourse and discussion somehow avoids the "prove it" mentality either. Can't I ask someone to prove what they are saying as much in a discussion as in a debate?

I also fail to see how discussion upholds non-traditional discourse better than debate. I can advocate a non-traditional discourse as well in a debate as I can in a discussion.

Fourth, "Modern politics wrongly alienates difference as evil because of its quest to maintain a unified identity. This creates a feeling of responsibility to eradicate the Other for the Self". This feels like it is a problem with the modern political situation not debate.

Fifth, I'm not getting a clear story on how your Kritik solves. You inform that this should be the last debate but how is that going to stop everyone from debating? I think debate could easily be argued to be inevitable which kind of screws your advocacy.

Sixth, more importantly though, there isn't an alternative that includes voting Logical down. Additionally I'd say that your alternative can't ask for a vote. You're argument is that debate should stop, but under that system you shouldn't care about votes what-so-ever. Meaning at the end of this debate your K should not win you the round.

Seventh, Perm....? Why can't both debate and discussion happen at once?
Posted by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
ha ha this is great
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
I realized it was kinda hard to win at the point in which I make the argument that the debate cant have a topic.. Making an argument against what he says would have made me make an argument, thus agreeing with the topic he provided. So yea, didn't work out how I envisioned. haha
Posted by nickoboy1992 8 years ago
nickoboy1992
As a circuit LD debater that K was nice in principle, however it kinda bites into its own justifications and since you were the instigator of the debate then...
Also i think you could have pulled it off better with a different topic (and probably a more open set of judges)
that being said, the K was pretty much torn apart
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Very interesting.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Mike- You don't have to make negative comments on random debate websites online to fulfill your life. You are 20 years old, do something better with your time than post angry comments on websites. You know your comment would make zero change in the world, yet posted it anyways. Trying to place random people that you see online beneath you to make yourself feel better is pitiful.

The premise of my "case" was probably misunderstood- Probably because it was mildly retarded. I congratulated my opponent on his win and now realize that the idea i had was stupid. But mike, you shouldnt vent your anger online because you live a pitiful life. Go away, get a life.
Posted by Mike430522 8 years ago
Mike430522
If it is how you said that the case is "unnecessary" then why, tell me, did you make the stupid debate. I read all of 7 lines of the text that you wrote and ALL of it was utter crap and you contradicted yourself multiple times.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Alright, those comments and this debate was made pre-vote bomb removal system.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Told you I was gonna lose. :D
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 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 Mike430522 8 years ago
Mike430522
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 Bjork-Taco 8 years ago
Bjork-Taco
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 lordfrig 8 years ago
lordfrig
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 zach12 8 years ago
zach12
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
fresnoinvasionLogical-MasterTied
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