The Instigator
Davewerty
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Sniperjake1994
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy

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: 8/7/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,980 times Debate No: 12713
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

Davewerty

Pro

This is my first debate on this site. I apologize Beforehand for my improper format.
I look forward to debating this matter.
Sniperjake1994

Con

Welcome to debate.org Dave, I'm sure you'll find it as a very interesting site.

I'll let you begin the debate, otherwise I would have more space for my arguments.

We'll follow this format if you like:
R1: Doesn't matter.
R2: Cases, I'll rebuttal.
R3: Final rebuttal and voting issues on why you should be voted.

Good luck on your first debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Davewerty

Pro

Nuclear energy should be used as a primary source of energy for many reasons.
Costs being one of them. Nuclear energy costs 2 cents per Kilowatt-hour. This is a fraction compared to the other sources of energy. Oil being 18 cents Per KWh and gas being around 8 cents Per kWh. Over time nuclear energy proves to be much less expensive and more practical.

Safety might be more of the controversial subjects when it comes to nuclear power. The problem is when fission occurs it is very difficult to stop. With today's technology the chance of a melt down is around .00026% for the average reactor life. If that meltdown is to occur it would be contained. All modern reactors have a containment building. A large dome completely surrounding the reactor. The containment consist of many feet of concrete and are able to withstand a collision with a fully loaded passenger airliner.

Nuclear energy is a declared green energy, the nuclear fission produces two byproducts. One being steam and the other nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is safely contained in canisters that do not allow any radiation or leakage of the waste to reach the outside. In other words nuclear waste does not harm the environment in anyway. Also nuclear waste is can be recycled through a reactor as plutonium, this reduces the amount of nuclear waste as a byproduct. Other energies like fossil-fuel energies produce tons of Co2. Coal-fire energy is extremely dangerous to the environment and is harming it now. The strip mining that is needed for coal causes devastation to landscapes. Coal fire plants use tons and tons of coal per day. While nuclear reactors use fuel rods which consume only a few uranium pellets every 30 years. The numbers between the two energies just do not compare.

Other alternative energies don't contend with nuclear power when it comes to being used on a large scale.
Nuclear power plants take a few hundred acres to produce its typical 1,000 megawatts per hour.
To equal one reactor you would need around 2400 turbines and 60,000 acres and of coarse wind is not always blowing. On average, wind turbines are working at full potential 25% of the time. And a nuclear reactor is always producing energy. To be realistic you would have to quadruple the acres and turbines to equal a reactor. So the numbers would be 9,800 turbines and 240,000 acres. To put it another way 240,000 acres is 375 square miles. And the square miles needed for a nuclear reactor is 2 . This is 1/187.5 fraction.

For solar panels to match one reactor, the land needed would be around 5,000 acres. And again solar panels only reach peak energy levels 25% of the time. And again you would have to quadruple 5,000 acres. This would be 20,000 acres of land needed to reach 1000 megawatts per hour. This is a 1/15 fraction.

Hydro electric power is just plain unfriendly to the environment. On one side of a dam a river is made much more shallow. The other side of the dam a reservoir is created and thousands of acres of land is flooded, forcing the natural habitat out.

Clearly, by the evidence that I have given there is no reason not to use nuclear energy as a primary energy.
Sniperjake1994

Con

Map: rebuttal then con's case.

Clarifications:

Nuclear energy: energy derived from nuclear power-plants
Primary source: significantly increase of use.
Alternative Energy: any energy sources except for coal and oil.

1a) Energy from the wind only cost .2c cents/kWh. This is cheaper than nuclear cost 2 cents per kWh. Therefore, overtime wind turbines are cheaper than nuclear power plants.
"Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average. NB these are the external costs only."(http://www.world-nuclear.org...)

1b) The cost to clean up an accident is tremendous on the taxpayers. And if we are to use nuclear more we are increasing the risk of an accident.
"A serious nuclear accident could cost more than $600 billion in 2004 dollars[2] - taxpayers would be responsible for covering the vast majority of that sum."

2) Nuclear power-plant must be built near a large source of water to cool the system. This not only disrupts the ecosystem by changing water temperature but also there is a chance of a radiation leakage into the water, thus contaminating the source and the consumers.
"High risks: Despite a generally high security standard, accidents can still happen. It is technically impossible to build a plant with 100% security. A small probability of failure will always last. The consequences of an accident would be absolutely devastating both for human being as for the nature (see here , here or here ). The more nuclear power plants (and nuclear waste storage shelters) are built, the higher is the probability of a disastrous failure somewhere in the world."-(TimeForChange.org)

3) Nuclear is not a green energy. Over time of extensive use of nuclear will produce steam (energy), steam will then steady increase global warming. Recyclable nuclear byproducts are currently under experiments, not only that but it is cheaper to buy new sources than to recycle nuclear waste. Nuclear mining and enrichment is dangerous to the environment through mutation. Nuclear reactors do not use only a few grams of uranium, they use by the ton. If reactors were to use only a few grams, we would not be fussing over waste disposal.

4) The US has excess unused land, especially in the desert. Solar panels and wind turbines would be perfect here.
a) Wind turbines: cheapest, more reliable, very efficient, low maintenance rate, low accidental rate, and low maintenance cost.
http://www.greenleft.org.au...
b) Solar panels: cheaper, low maintenance rate, and low accidental rate.
http://www.inhabitat.com...
c) Hydro electric power is crucial to the ecosystem and to humans in energy, drinking water, and recreational.

"There are many dams along the Colorado River, but not all of them produce electricity. In fact, the main reason the Hoover Dam was built and is operating today is not for its electricity production. The Hoover Dam and the other 50+ dams help control the Colorado River. That is, they control floods, irrigate crops, supply drinking water, make places for recreation, create habitat for wildlife, and generate electricity. Lake Mead, located behind the wall at Hoover Dam is the most important part of the Dam. It is the biggest man-made lake in the United States and provides drinking water to Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix. Las Vegas gets almost all of its water from Lake Mead. While the electricity that Hoover Dam generates is important, living out here in the desert would be impossible without the flowing water of the Colorado River."-(http://www.eia.doe.gov...)

Con's case:
1) Nuclear waste is costly and harmful. It take at least 10,000 years for uranium to be a bit safe. Maintaining these waste disposal is costly. Over 10,000 years? Overtime the cost will outweigh its benefits.

2) Dismantling a nuclear plant is very costly, more than solar panels and wind turbines.

3) Nuclear terrorism involving the waste are high and risky. Increasing usage would produce more waste and thus increasing the chances of nuclear waste being stolen and use as weapons known as the dirty bomb.
"A direct hit by a penetrating 1,000-pound explosive (or equivalent) would likely inflict damage that would disperse tons of radioactive material. "Destruction of the main feed pump or steam lines," says David Rossin, a nuclear expert at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, "could create problems of decay heat and produce the release of fission products." Perhaps the most vulnerable nuclear material is in the spent fuel storage pool, according to Rossin, where unloaded core material does not have the same degree of protection as does the reactor core"

4) Uranium is not renewable. Within 30-50 years at this rate we would run out of uranium from mines. Not to mention all the nuclear waste produced.

For the reasons above nuclear energy should not be the primary alternative energy.
Debate Round No. 2
Davewerty

Pro

I will makes my comments on your argument by corresponding them with the same template.

1a) I have already made my point on the use of solar and wind. They are more of a small scale energy. One wind turbine cost 1,000,000 dollars. A farm of 100 would cost 130,000,000 dollars. That lot of 100 would not even produce the amount of one nuclear reactor. Industrial solar panels cost 40-80 thousand dollars. Just imagine a farm of them.
And again both these energies do not work 24/7 as nuclear plants do.

1b) You need to put things into perspective. What exactly is a serious nuclear accident? Do you mean an accident like Chernobyl or an accident like 3 Mile-Island. If Chernobyl, that accident happened in 1986. The U.S has much more advanced nuclear technology then that of Chernobyl of 1986. Also Chernobyl did not have a containment building, as all modern nuclear plants do. An accident like Chernobyl happening in the U.S today is next to impossible. If you meant a 3 Mile-Island accident, the worst accident in U.S history ,then you are looking at more of a 900 million dollar clean up. Not a 600 billion dollar clean up. Also that accident was in 1979. So, again our technology is much more advanced. The damage done to the surrounding areas of 3 Mile-Island are minimal. Residents that live next to the plant receive more radiation form the sun then the melted reactor.

3) Nuclear is a declared green energy by the government. Steam produced from nuclear plants create green landscapes as it is keeping plants well watered 24/7. The steam has almost no effect on the acceleration of global warming. Recycling of nuclear waste is not practiced by the U.S only. Every other nuclear country recycles nuclear waste and they prove that recycling waste is practical. Yes, mining of uranium is not very friendly to the environment but you must also ask where all the metal to make wind turbines come from. The answer is mines as well.

4) Previously answered

Your case

1) What could the cost of letting a canister full of waste sit in a designated area be? The maintenance is not expensive. Also if Jimmy Carter did not make recycling of nuclear waste illegal the amount of waste would be significantly lower, which would ultimately lower the maintenance cost.

2) Nuclear plants last up to 50-65 years. And almost all plants are not dismantled. They are stripped of nuclear substances and are left to crumble.

3) Obviously you have not seen security at a nuclear plant. I can guarantee that there are no terrorists stealing nuclear waste from secured canisters or diving into the fuel pool to steal waste from fuel rods. Let me know when terrorists in the middle east can send a rocket 5000 miles across the earth and hit a containment building precisely.

4) One, those numbers are wrong. We are looking at a 240 year supply. Two, like a said recycling nuclear waste would increase those years significantly.

I have one last thing to say. The U.S Navy has been using nuclear power for decades and have not encountered one problem.
Sniperjake1994

Con

Same format as above:

1a) Obviously wind farms take up much land, but the U.S has excessive land that we do not use mostly in the desert where there are plenty of wind.
http://hubpages.com...
Solar power plants work 24/7 even in cloudy conditions.
http://www.grist.org...
Building a nuclear power plant cost at least $4 billion, it is more costly to the 130 million for wind turbines that can be decommissioned or moved around.
At least there methods do not deplete any resources, unlike nuclear.

1b) A serious nuclear accident would involved deaths and a major change in the surrounding enviroment. There is a 16% chance of a nuclear disaster within the next 40 years. (http://docs.google.com...) Space shuttles like Discovery were expected to have an accident every 76 flights. Instead, in less than 24 flights there were 2 accidents. Considering the fact nuclear power plants are built near cities, chances are nuclear accidents will cause devastating damage to the city. The majority of the cost of the accident will come from taxpayers.
Other accidents:(http://www.lutins.org...)

2) Pro agrees because there were no arguments there.

3) Recycling is more expensive than obtaining newly mined uranium. So obviously nuclear companies would mine new sources and enrich nuclear. Metal is recycled more efficiently and economically cheaper than uranium. Not only that but wind turbines can be moved, unlike nuclear power plants.
"Reprocessing doesn't make any sense – economically, it's more expensive" than mining uranium and just discarding the waste, claims Steve Caldwell, Policy Coordinator for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
http://news.cnet.com...

4) Dave ignored the fact that the U.S has excess deserted land that can be filled with wind turbines, solar panels, and solar power plants.

Con's case:

1) Over $96 billion per site. Considering we have many that also has to be maintained over tens of thousands of years and with inflation, so that's over $96 billion.
http://www.usatoday.com...

2) Decommissioning a power plant just stripping the nuclear substance cost $320 million per unit. Compare this cost to simply moving solar panels or wind turbines by flatbed trucks.

3) Read my R2 and R3 sources. There were smuggling attempts while transporting uranium. In Russia in 1999 plant workers tried to sell 5 grams of radioactive material to the open market. Several years before some others were caught selling 4.5 kilograms of enriched uranium.
http://www.atomicarchive.com...

4) One, "The European Commission said in 2001 that at the current level of uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42 years. When added to military and secondary sources, the resources could be stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that nuclear power continues to provide only a fraction of the world's energy supply. If electric capacity were increased six-fold, then the 72-year supply would last just 12 years."
Two, recycling is currently under experiments and very expensive. Plutonium 239 is a highly unstable byproduct of recycling and also increases the risk of an accident.

I'm surprised that none had sunk yet; if one did it will contaminate the ocean, like oil. Actually, there was a solution about sinking waste but any rupture, even from one canister, would cause serious major environmental damage.

So with that said nuclear energy should not be the primary alternative energy.

Voting issues:

1) Davewerty dropped my 2nd rebuttal on his case about high security standards not being able to protect the environment.
2) Davewerty did not have valid sources backing is arguments. Note to Davewerty: always post sources.
3) Nuclear accidents are likely to happen/increase if we increase our use, proven above.
4) In the long run nuclear energy are more expensive than any other alternative sources.
5) U.S has excess desert land that no one live on and are promising to solar and wind power, we should invest more in those instead, basically went in a circle about how alternative energy takes up land and money.
6) Nuclear recycling is currently unstable and expensive so it is not as economical and eco-friendly as other alternatives.
7) Nuclear waste is still a major issue, recycling is not a reliable option.
8) Increase in nuclear energy would increase the chances of smuggling nuclear for "other purposes."

Thank you and please comment and/or vote. I enjoyed this debate Davewerty.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
@Rob "Con continues to rail on the cost of plutonium in round 3 and the risks of smuggling but again NEVER makes the solid connection that recycling uranium INHERENTLY leads to nuclear weapon proliferation."

Recycling Uranium by the US, Britain, France, China, and Russia does not inherently lead to nuclear proliferation because those countries already have nuclear weapons. Countries like Iran and North Korea that want nukes are not even slightly impressed by other countries refusing to recycle. The refusal to recycle is pointless posturing.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The cost numbers cited by Con were for "external costs only," meaning the costs of environmental factors other than global warming. They are negligible compared to the actual power generation costs. Con's reference had some good numbers on total costs, but amazingly neither side used them! For wind and solar, the cost of a backup system must be included because neither operate 24/7. Con's reference to 24/7 solar said heat could be stored for only seven hours, and it gave no costs for the proposed scheme. Night sare longer than 7 hours for most of the year, so a backup plant would still be required. Since capital costs dominate, most of the cost of coal, gas, or nuclear plant must be added to wind and solar costs.

The worst case nuclear accident for a Westen-style nuclear power plant occurred t Three Mile Island. The main cost was the loss of the plant. Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated reactor, where the damage was caused by the graphite catching fire and spreading he radiation. There is no graphite in a Western reactor.

The nuclear waste problem is mainly a result of a ban on nuclear fuel recycling in fast breeder reactors, a ban enacted during the Carter Administration for political reasons. There is also a DoE design for a plant that converts 10,000 year waste to 200 year waste.

Pro should have included references, obviously.

This was a very broad topic for a short debate. It is probably better to break it up into a number of more narrow topics.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
You need to cite your sources, and it's a good habit to get into for life in general. Your comment, "If you want to learn something then look it up", is just my point. I CAN'T look up your information when you don't provide sources. At the very least, that provides you incentive to tweak your numbers a little. Worse, you could completely be making things up. When you post your sources people can fact-check your arguments to find misrepresentations and/or mistakes (like Rob, below).
Posted by Davewerty 6 years ago
Davewerty
I just want coal out. Nuclear to be primary and solar,wind, and hydro to be used in moderation. It would be a better country if we could use all alternative sources. Just in my opinion nuclear should be primary. Thanks for the debate sniperjake.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
@Rob: Thanks for the heads up, I'll be more clear in future debates. I do realize my rebuttals was based on evidence rather than interpreting sources. And I'll try not to quote as much and explain.

@NorthernShooter: That has no relevance with what Davewerty and I debated. Clean coal was never mentioned. In fact, coal is not considered alternative.

@Nails: Good point, I should have stressed Hydro-electric.

@Davewerty: I admire your honesty in voting, not many debaters who can vote does this to his or her own debates.

Overall thank you for all your comments, it was very productive.
Posted by Davewerty 6 years ago
Davewerty
Okay can we move passed me not having sources. If you want to learn something then look it up because i did not make this information up. Really does it have to be that politically correct?
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
I don't really feel like typing out a long RFD right now (but if you really want one, please ask) but my decision boiled down to:
(1) I read most of CON's evidence and most of it was pretty good on the issue (although I ignored the clearly miscited ev that Rob mentioned) whereas PRO's evidence was simply non-existent. Based on this,
(2) Hydro helps the environment while Nuclear hurts it, so Hydro is preferable as the primary alt energy.

I feel like other alternatives that were only briefly touched upon in this debate would also be better than Nuclear based on the ev presented in round since they achieve similar or better results without the harms inherent to Nuclear energy. I don't think the issue of space is adequate to discredit solar or wind either since PRO isn't actually explaining how much space is TOO much to use, and CON is at least making the argument that we have plenty of space.

As a side note, I think an interesting position for PRO to have taken would be to defend the benefits of depleted uranium (for its use in weapons, for example) instead of just trying to mitigate the harms.

I would have voted in only the arguments category and in sources but decided to give CON all 7 points instead to counter-balance NorthernShooter who gave PRO all points without demonstrating any rational basis for his decision.
Posted by NorthernShooter 6 years ago
NorthernShooter
Its time to get rid of dirty coal power, there's reality and there's fiction...clean coal is fiction and nuclear power being a safe and clean primary source of energy is reality.
Posted by Rob1Billion 6 years ago
Rob1Billion
Con also fails to assert the MAIN problem with recycling uranium. If you re-use uranium and recycle it, you create weapons-grade plutonium. He beats around the bush with smuggling and costs, but never asserts this prime point. IOWs, the best thing about nuclear, that its own by-products are effective raw materials for further energy use, is also its Achilles heal because you now have weapons grade plutonium EVERYWHERE and no security force on the planet is going to keep track of it all if we make a total switch.

In round 3, Pro fails to make the kill by exposing Con's glaring statistical error, and instead claims that solar and wind are "only small scale." I wish he would have used the term "baseload power" to describe why nuclear provides consistent power while wind and solar do not, but he makes the point nonetheless.

Con continues to rail on the cost of plutonium in round 3 and the risks of smuggling but again NEVER makes the solid connection that recycling uranium INHERENTLY leads to nuclear weapon proliferation.

I hope that you both take my facts as learning points and not just criticisms of what you did wrong. Of course, I could have made some mistakes here as well hich you will no doubt expose if I have. I hope you both continue learning about alternative energy systems because they are going to be integral in the future... The most educated opinions I have read are that our future will be ripe with ALL versions of alternative energy, and each area will have its own portfolio based on efficiency/effectiveness.
Posted by Rob1Billion 6 years ago
Rob1Billion
I agreed with Con before and after the debate and I wasn't moved by any of the arguments, although I am probably unique because I have a small background in alternative energy systems so there was nothing new for me here. You guys brought up some good points on both sides and I'm a big fan of the topic; this type of debate is especially productive because of the immense relevance and utility of the subject matter.

With that said, I have to be extremely critical of you both. Again, please don't be offended; I'm currently enrolled in a master's degree program for environmental science and policy.

In round two, Pro started out OK. I thought his comment about waste being "stored safely" in canisters was a little ridiculous, considering those canisters must practically last FOREVER. Sure, they are safe over a small time period, but how safe are they for 10,000 years? Furthermore, 10,000 years is only the arbitrary limit set by the EPA because the actual half-lives of the substances are so ridiculously long there's no practical way to regulate them. After 10,000 years there is a large % of the substance still there.

Con makes a bastardly mistake in round 2 and the only reason I didn't completely vote against him for it is because pro failed to capitalize on it. Con's citation is fatally flawed; wind power is NOT cheaper, KWH speaking, than ANYTHING except photovoltaics. Your numbers specifically say, at the end, that they are strictly "external costs" only. So while a fully-built wind turbine only has a negligible EXTERNAL cost, that doesn't take into account the actual cost to build it. You got extremely lucky that pro missed this.

Con also used too much direct quoting for my taste; I would have liked to see more paraphrasing then copypasta. I would suggest quoting only short phrases and citing accordingly instead of quoting the entire paragraph. That leaves the reader wondering if you even understand exactly what you're quoting. Continued above...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
DavewertySniperjake1994Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: COn had sources
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
DavewertySniperjake1994Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Sniperjake1994
DavewertySniperjake1994Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Davewerty 6 years ago
Davewerty
DavewertySniperjake1994Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
DavewertySniperjake1994Tied
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:32 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
DavewertySniperjake1994Tied
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 NorthernShooter 6 years ago
NorthernShooter
DavewertySniperjake1994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 6 years ago
Rob1Billion
DavewertySniperjake1994Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00