The Instigator
Sonofkong
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Noone can beat Chuck Norris.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 5/4/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,705 times Debate No: 11966
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (6)

 

Sonofkong

Pro

I will challenge you to find a person, any person who can beat Chuck Norris. The only restrictions.
(1): The fight must be bareknuckle. Using only there fists and there awesomeness.
(2): The competitor must be a living, human. Fictional characters are possible but discouraged.
(3): Jesus Christ does not count, neither does God, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Santa Claus, The person must be proven to exist.
(4): You can change contenders between matches but only one per round.
I await your response.
Marauder

Con

take a close look at rules 2 and 3. 3 contradicts 2. If one must prove there person exist then by default fictional characters are not just 'discouraged' but outright impossible. I have Fictional contenders though that I would be happy to present Chuck Norris based on shear awesomeness but until I can have confirmed that its safe to use them they can not be my contenders.

My first contender is Jackie Chan

Since we can neither use fictional characters I demand that my opponent cannot not use the fictional chuck Norris. For The real one is this Old Man that you see in this video. Just listen to him talk and his oldness should be apparent. He's still in shape for sure thanks to all that gym equipment he is frequently advertising on TV, so he will likely live to a very old age, I would put money on him and his wife living past 110 years old before passing away. But examine closely he's just a man, if wolverine cuts of one of is testis it will not create Jupiter it will just be a sad bloody mess on the the floor and he may have difficulty 'having some fun' with his wife.
Now if fictional characters apply that do not need be proved real then all the 'Chuck Norris Facts' like him having a fist under his beard and his tears curing cancer can apply to him. But we all know in reality Mr Norris has a regular chin under that beard and my opponent would not dare try and prove that the fist chin exist under there. So with only proved existing people applying to this debate only the very real Chuck Norris can be used in this debate. Listen to him talk again, he's an Old Man. Listen to what he spends his time doing, Old People Stuff! like reading congressional bills that are thousands of pages long just so he can voice an opinion with authority on a talk show with little viewers. I ask you if god needs to ask this man to create the universe shouldn't he have enough authority to tell the people the bill is a stupid one without needing the read it. it is an abrasive to Chuck Norris 'facts' (humorous ones) to claim that he needs to 'read' a bill to call it good or bad. If Chuck Norris facts represented the real Norris then he would have roundhouse kicked all of congress in the face until they give make a better bill, when is that bill okay with chuck Norris, when it has the roundhouse kick expensive insurance companies clause. Chuck Norris does not read bills and support them on talk shows he roundhouse kicks the president until taxes drop, and the businessmen until premiums go up. But know the video indicates he went through the lame process of reading a boring bill.

Now let us examine the real Jackie Chan, He is an old man too but just look at what he is still doing in the second video. That movie was this year, and he still does his own stunts. And he's not done with his action career yet with the upcoming Karate Kid movie. Also any given action seen in Chan's past movies or shows is clearly more awesome than the ones done by the Texas Ranger. Jackie Chan can turn a ladder that's stuck on him into a weapon, he can turn a fish into a weapon, and my favorite a horseshoe on a rope. Every thing is a weapon in Jackie Chan's hands. If my opponent demands the Chuck Norris 'facts' still apply then I say its fact that Jackie Chan can use a tub of cool whip to break you bones. my opponent may say this fight can have no weapons only bare fist, but given just that Chan would use Norris own shirt and pants against him. He would even use the seventy year old Chuck own round house kick against him. Grab his leg stopping the roundhouse kick and flip him upside down or make him run backwards into a wall or down the stairs, depending on the environment. Another advantage of the Chan man is that wherever the fight is it easily becomes his playground, not counting the stuff he finds and pulls a Mcgiver with. He can fight you on top of a wind sail on a boat, on rafters of a building in construction, in a bell tower, on a train, ect.... just name the location and Chan is more known for exploiting it on the spot.
Jackie Chan is so awesome he has even had his own cartoon, what cartoon has Chuck Norris ever been?

So as we can see the non-fictional proved real Chuck is now old and not so awesome
the non fictional proved real Jackie Chan is also old now and he is still awesome.

The case is clear.
Debate Round No. 1
Sonofkong

Pro

First off I will mention that by proven to exist I meant in their respective fictional universes. Freddy Krueger is real in his universe and so are others. However, according to both Descartes and Neitzches nothing is real unless you percieve it and of course according to probability there is always the small chance an incredible thing will happen. There is a percentage of chance you will go to mars tomorrow morning however impossible it seems. So there is the probability that Jackie Chan as well as Chuck Norris. Plus have you seen Jackie Chan, are you sure he is real. If you have then he could have been an impostor. So therefore nothing is proven real and Chuck Norris does not exist so therefore you can not beat Chuck Norris as he does not exist. I now will proceed to tap dance.
Marauder

Con

I wonder if I provoked that argument or if that was your plan all along and I am a victim of clever debate trickory. Well witchever the case I have this to deal with now so.....

----------------
Nothing is real unless I percieve it:
------------------
Very well, I perceive Chan and Norris as they are in the videos. an old man who can kick but, and an old man who reads congressional bills. this percieved Chan is clearly more awsome than Norris. Plus in any respective 'universe' for the various charcters they have played, Chan has fought on crazy awsome levels higher than Norris has. Norris has been a texas ranger fighting with realistic fighting stats, a cammando, and a figment of a kids imagination who still faught realisticly. In the movie 'Medailion' and 'Tuxiedo' and 'Forbidon Kingdom' chan fights on levels of awsome before unkown to man. I challange my opponent to provide one video clip of norris doing something as visually impressive Chan in any of those three films.

-------------------
There is a small chance, however Improbable the Incredible will happen:
-------------------
Yes indeed, and there is a small chance a monkey could randomly type hamlet, but if it does though that is possible for all intense and purposes we should believe I trained it type hamlet as that is more rational. It is possible I will go to mars tomarrow but we should believe I wont because nothing is exceptional about tomorrow that the aliens would have kidnapped me then as opposed to yesterday. It is possible that the 'Chuck Norris facts' are true but since we saw it was fact that Norris endorsed Huckabee for president and that 'Chuck Norris dosnt endorse, he tells america how its gonna be' yet huckabee lost to Mcain http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008 And after loseing Mcain and Romney did not suffer from roundhouse kicks to the face, witch surely would have been on the news or at least killed Mcain so he vanishes from it. It seems Chuck Norris facts are not just improbable, but blatently proven false.
However Jackie Chan has yet to be proven false that he can breack your arms with Cool Wip. So the possibilty of incredible still apply to him.

-----------------
We can be totally sure of nothing:
-----------------
No one cares, because we can be sure enough.

------------------------
Nothing is proven so chuck dosnt exist and cant be defeted:
------------------------
More appropriatly, One cannot prove things to be one way and not the other. we can address though all the possibilties. eithor....
a) Chuck Norris exist and so does Jackie Chan. there in those videos. Chan would have beat him last round.
b) Chuck Norris does not exist exept of a figment of your imagination. and if that is true I can kill him by pounding you into forgetting him or untill you die.
c) Chuck Norris based on the 'Facts' that cant be true because Mitt Romney is not in hiding, is exist as an idea, and the shear awsomeness of this idea could eaisely be defeted by Batman http://en.wikipedia.org... who is exist by the same virtues and Batmans is way more awsome than Norris. But Batman will be my contender next round.

I will explain why Batman would defeat Norris then, but this round I am my own contender to defeat Norris as this round your method argument portrais Norris as a figment of your imagination. and You think therefore you are so Norris clearly exist there. There are a number of ways I can kill you, and by proxy the Norris of your imagination. I could
a) shapen my sword that right now is just for looks in my room cause swords are cool! then procead to your house and cut of your skull. this will be easy as you are tap danceing right now.
b) give my insane CIA cusine a phone call and tell him to pick you up, you might be a terrorist. they will waterboard you untill you admitt you no longer acknoledge the existance of the Norris and thus Norris goes completely into oblivion and by proxy is defeted by me using no more than my hands to dial the button on a phone.
c) you know the only way for a bare fist fight between me and the figment norris of your head is for his hands alone and not yours to participate in this fight. So I keep punching you but because Norris is a figment of your mind his punches and roundhouse kicks never hurt me. You keep screaming at me that Norris is roundhouse kicking me as I punch you but I ignore that and your knows starts to bleed. you cry, then announce the Norris's defeat.
d) I strangle you in your sleep. norris is no more.

A Norris that exist the way you described in round 2 would be beaten by sending him further to oblivion. and I have listed mearly 4 ways of doing that, one could go on forever about how to hypothetically do that as the task of sending a figment to oblivion is an easy one.

So Chan clearly won last round if Norris is real, if the Norris that is fighting is not and one last round then that Norris clearly was defeated by me this round. and next round Batman will wipe the floor with him, and the round after that I will pick some other literary 'Mary Sue' to destroy him. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Sonofkong

Pro

First Off I would point out that e are never sure of anything. You may have a fraction of a doubt that you could be in the matrix or in a hallucination, so thinking does not guarantee, existence.
Plus even if we were sure you existed, than what are you. If you were put in a metallic body you would still be you so the only thing that guarantees you're existence is your consciousness which of course would be roundhouse kicked by Chuck Norris' consciousness.
Besides that killing me, which is unlikely as I have years of martial art's training, a katana and various guns would not end the so called figment of chuck norris. He is also in many other peoples imagination and once again noone can beat something that does not exist.
Marauder

Con

My opponent is making certain assumtions that all others on this planet share his same fractured mental state that makes him inable to be certain of anything. For example, I am 100% certain that I am saved by God, and that there is a God to save me. I am 100% certain that if my opponent would slit open his wrist and leave the wound unattented he will die of blood loss, and his corpse will turn blue. I am certain that if one holds a angus calfs head and neck flat on the ground it will be as unable to move as if it had an 'off switch' that you used. And of all the things my opponent worries that could be possible to throw doubt into the mix, it is not important if one is not 100% certain when one is clearly certain enough. What methods we have avalible to us to determine truth is what we have availible to us and we are to base our resolved beliefs on those very methods. Because of these methods I am now 100% certain enough that Chuck Norris is a 70 year old burnt out actor that endorses political agendas these day's.
My opponents claim was that no one can ever be 100% certain, and yet hear I am with a certainty that contradicts that statement, for if no one can be certain than neither can I be yet I obviously am certain.

My opponent did nothing to argue against the Jacki Chan Vs Norris last round so under the perception that he is as real as the Huckabee show portrays my opponent must be consieding that under that possibility Chan would win on shere awsomeness (he reaserches no congressional bills, his life is filled with action movie making). So as open minded as my opponent is, to win this debate he must close his mind to the possibility that is most probable that chuck norris is a 70 year old man that is so lame he reaserches bills, and has not roundhouse kicked Mitt Romney in the face for causing the presidential canidate he outspokenly made a stand for to lose the primaries.

But let us consider some of the possibilities my opponent sugest could be the real truth. That in fact the only comparision from last round that is valid is my consiousness, not my body or what it can do, for my mind is all that I can know. and it vs a figment from his mind, I would lose to norris. or even to the Norris of anyone elses minds. This is false. as we can see from some of my past debates; http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
It is clear that if I have one streangth, it is my imaginativeness. In one of those debates my opponent even took not of it and comended me for it, but my imaginativeness was not based on facts. If the tech was provided to allow a hypothetical match between the figment of your mind called chuck norris (or anyone elses mind this figment exist in) I would win hands down. Why? because your chuck norris is limeted by 'facts' http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com... and that is why they are called 'chuck norris facts' whereas my mind has been testified by others to this site to freely go beyond 'facts' as I imagine things. So as your chuck norris would begin to use his atomic round house kick I would have already had my chrono-abram tank that is mentaly prepared for just such occasions to de-atomize your chuck norris. the chrono tech of my tank is based apon the chrono legonairs of 'Red Alert 2'.
Plus if my opponent is allowed to claim as fact for this debate that he is trained martial arts then I am allowed to claim that I am trained in tibeten mental disciplens that keeps me safe from mind reader, mind control, and mental envasion. whereas you are lucky enough to to infiltrate my mind by the tech that makes the figment norris vs me match possible, I am trained to deal with such a mental invasion and easily overpower your own mind before you concentrait enough to make norris a solid fighting charcter, and once norris is formed I control him because I control you and order him to admit inferority to my awsomeness and roundhouse kick himself in his own face.

Beyond an actual mental match, my point about killing my opponent in his sleep still stands as he will not be expecting me to come, or that I would even find his house, so it does not matter what training he has, If I'm awake and he is not it is a no contest match.

The same rules applies to anyone eles who is being the avatar for the fictitious Norris based on the Norris facts because that Norris is based on 'Facts' and that is why this figment Norris can even exist in multiple people's minds. if the Norris of your mind is not based on those facts than he is not the chuck norris of this debate, and for all purposes should be called something else like 'the Zohan', like adam sandlers Iraqi Chuck Norris. http://www.sonypictures.com...

So it seems clear that by the possibilities my opponent has been defending on the weak ground that 'we are not 100% certain he's an old man' and that the figment of his mind could not be defeated, though my round one contender would have lost, my round two contender (myself) would not.

On to my round three contender. Batman.

For there is still another perspective 'possibility' that we could not be 100% sure of not being real and thats of the simple awsome level match between the Norris of the 'Chuck Norris facts'. For surely though I would win an imaginitive mind match with anyone mentally trying to conceive of the Norris, the fact may still be disputed that at the end of the day no one will still consider me quite as awsome as the descriptions of the Norris from 'the facts' list, anyone of average awsomeness could contend such a figment that isnt given the free range of being defined by the full imanginative powers of the person supporting him, but must stay limited to his 'facts list', and the only fair match worth considering against the Chuck Norris is one of any two characters that exist in some sense that my opponent defined, No other charcter has been defined more awsomely than the 'Chuck Norris Facts' make Chuck Norris.

But from my opponents definition of allowing fictional characters, its clear Batman is allowed, and I think anyone can agree Noone is more awsome than Batman (Bruce Wayne) from the DC comic universe.

Consider these Batman facts

Batman is so prepared that even if some one poisins him and he is stark naked, he still has the antidote for cureing himself on hand (without his batbelt) because he has it in his shoulder, he cut open and keeps it inside there.

Batman killed the God of Evil with a Radon bullit.

on Batman 'Brave and the Bold' its clear that all other super heros that nomaly have sidekicks of there own are Batmans Sidekicks.

http://comics.ign.com... Bruce is about to overcome History itself. there are absolutely no traps our situations he cannot deal with.

Chuck norris on the other hand, he cannot even cry to cure himslef from cancer. how lame that he could die so easily.

Hands down Batman is more awsome than Norris.
Debate Round No. 3
Sonofkong

Pro

First off I would like to apologize for the lack of video. I have however an even more valuable source chuck norris facts com.
As it mentions chuck norris it is guranteed holy and it would be a sin to tamper with it. It is testimony from real wiitnesses and the souls in hell of his victims. I doubt you need the link.
Now on the examples you posted lets look back.
Jackie Chan: Great showman, but the fact of him doing his own stunts now is near impossible. Inhis latest quiet stupid movie, for kids might I add, He even in the bloopers I can't find, can barely speak the english. It is highly likely he uses a stunt double now. He is also, like chuck norris old, and remembering that in his later movie is rimarily no action. What action there is pretty basic. Plus that movie sucked so it immediately is not a good example.
You: Chuck Norris at age 90 could beat you, as could I as I have 2 shotguns and a trunkfull of ammo, various objeects for a barricade, a katana and tonfas as well as "me Irish fists."
Batman: I must give you a refresher on the rules.
//(1): The fight must be bareknuckle. Using only there fists and there awesomeness.//
Batman never in his life has fought a fair boxing match. It has 97% of the time been stealth kills or gadgets. I intended the rules to be in a brightly light arena so this is illogical to have batman.
I challenge you to find a picture or video of batman fighting a fair match, without weapons or technology, and winning. (Mortal Kombat doesn't count.)
Marauder

Con

First off, to cover my opponents claims about 'chucknorrisfacts.com'. I in fact already provided a link to this website to show you there are 'facts' that limit this chuck, thus I would win a mind battle against the chuck based on them because I do not need 'facts'. My opponent then made up new facts to be added to the website such as "it is testimony from real witnesses and the souls in hell of his victims". Go Back to where I provide the link to this site that seems to focus on selling T-shirts and you will see no such claim of its source exist there. However you might click some links on the site to see what they consider 'the official site' You will see even chucknorrisfacts.com admits that the real facts are hear....http://www.chucknorris.com...
Look at some of the students he's trained. Bob Barker, Steve McQueen. This only reinforces the fact that he is very old today, I mean really Steve McQueen was around to act in black in white movies like 'The Blob' http://en.wikipedia.org...

Chan: My opponent contends Jackie Chan cannot do his own stunts anymore because the bloopers at the end of spy next door show he has trouble speaking English. This is utter logic fail on my opponents part. For the people who thought that contention did make sense, why don't we equally hold it against Chuck Norris for having great difficulty speaking Chinese, therefore he cant do his own stunts anymore.
I challenge my opponent to find a link that shows Chan did not do his own stunts for the first time in his career in his newest movie.
To end the point about performing ones own stunts, look up who the Guinness World Record holder for 'most stunts by a living actor' is held by. Is it Chuck Norris? Noooo it is not, Jackie Chan holds that record and thus continuing to prove himself more awesome than Chuck Norris. http://www.funtrivia.com...
Another thing to consider, though Chan is old, he is only 50, he has a clear advantage over Chuck Norris is they fought today, who is 20 years older than him. Chuck Norris graduated from high school before Chan was even born! man that's one old man. Its no wonder Chuck has completely stopped doing his own stunts and moved on to reading congressional bills like an old man does who is too old to fight.

Me: I am aware I would definitely lose to a 90 year old Chuck Norris, thanks to his disciplined use of his 'Total Gym' even at his currant age, 70; he is in good shape. I on the other hand am not very in shape for my considerably younger age. But facing him in such a real since was is already shown that he would lose to Jackie Chan. But provided you force us to consider the possibilities of anything incredible happening like the imaginary chuck in your mind not based on real facts but 'chucknorrisfacts.com' would be able to contend, then we are talking about a mind battle, yours (a host of the chuck figment) and mine. As I shown with some of my previous debates such as 'Ragnozork (in the mandatory sense) should be taught in schools' it has been noted my imagination does not need facts. your Chuck Norris is limited by facts though, as you referenced last round acted like you forgot it had already been sourced. In such a battle Just from staring at chuck I give him cancer, chuck needs to cry to cure himself but cant (since he never cry's) and dies. I win. even if he round house kicks me to death before his death, he will still die because of our match and thus has been defeated.

Batman: I too am referring to a bare knuckles match. it is a myth that without his gadgets batman would be helpless
http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... once batman's back was broken by Bane, and Azerail had to take up the mantle while he recovered. while recovering he was trained by Lady Shiva to use a martial arts move that is fatal called the Leopard Blow. Striped down to where the contenders have nothing but there fist Batman can still kill you. and he can kill Chuck Norris. Batman is just that awesome. He is arguable the worlds greatest martial artist in his universe, though there are a few contenders in such an argument like Richard Dragon, Green Arrow number Two, and Lady Shiva, however Chuck Norris is not on the list.

My fourth Contender is Bear Grills, the famous real individual from Man Vs Wild.
It is obvious from watching these videos that Bear Grills can man up and eat anything in the universe. So the answer to the timeless question 'How do you survive a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick?' is you man up and eat the roundhouse kick, and there is only one who is man enough to do it, Bear Grills. Bear Grills can eat Chuck Norris if he has too. the pain inflicted from the roundhouse kicks chuck gives as Bear Grills eats him will of course make him wish to spit chuck out, but he knows that continuing to eat chuck could save is life.
Bear Grills is so awesome he could eat a roundhouse kick. He can eat anything. Period.
Debate Round No. 4
Sonofkong

Pro

Sonofkong forfeited this round.
Marauder

Con

I extend all my arguments concerning the previous contenders. I included contenders from what is considered 'real' normally, in concept of the imagination having free rain, awesome characters from fictitious universes, and another celebrity that could very easily be used for similar Mary sue http://en.wikipedia.org... stereotype jokes like Chuck Norris has become. So what kind of contender should I use for the last one? I choose a semantic one. Peter Noone

http://en.wikipedia.org...
The resolution is that Noone can beat Norris, and I am Con to that. No matter how you consider it best to consider Norris (based on the chucknorrisfacts.com, based on his own website, Wikipedia, the huckabee report video, your imagination...) its clear that any of those chucks could wipe the floor with Peter Noone, witch its my opponents position to defend that Noone can beat Norris. even at age 70 I think Norris is got what it takes to defeat a 62 music artist. So its more rational to believe that Norris would beat Noone, not the other way around.

If anyone viewing this debate has a fundamental problem with use of semantic arguments, feel free to ignore this one, I saved it for last round for the very reason that we all know full well what my opponent intended in the resolution. I feel confident at least one of the previous 4 should be enough to defeat Norris, as long as you are consistent with how you consider chuck norris to be each round.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
LMFAO!!!!! at marauders comment
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
Chuck Norris doesn't have a beard in that video. His beard increases his combat powers tenfold just like Goku's monkey tail increases his.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
ALL THE PROOF u could ever want
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
lol this one's even better!

Jackie chan happens upon a stand up businessman and steals his boose :)
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
Bruce Lee he's done it before
Posted by Hurstman 6 years ago
Hurstman
I don't vote bomb, but I always 7 point against someone is they forfeited a round. I hate that
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@Noob:
pretentious noobs like you are ridiculous and pointless.
Posted by Noob 6 years ago
Noob
This topic is straight up ridiculous and pointless.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
Bear makes Will farel eat an eyeball too.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
here he eats skunk
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
SonofkongMarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by jimloyd 4 years ago
jimloyd
SonofkongMarauderTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: he has been beat before
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
SonofkongMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
SonofkongMarauderTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by rockiesfan4ever 6 years ago
rockiesfan4ever
SonofkongMarauderTied
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 Hurstman 6 years ago
Hurstman
SonofkongMarauderTied
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