The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
21 Points

Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize

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: 10/14/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,153 times Debate No: 9692
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)




There has been a lot of stir about Obama's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe he was an excellent candidate, because of the wars he does not promote. Many of the below-mentioned wars are promoted by certain politicians and past Presidents, and since Obama does not follow in their footsteps he deserves credit (even if he hasn't been active in condemning them up until now).

1) WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST- Obama obviously cannot be blamed for starting this, and he has done a good job so far in redefining why we are there and setting us up to get the hell out of there. He is doing a good job in slowly but surely ending this war.

2) WAR ON DRUGS- there is no such thing as a war on drugs, as we really can't wage a war on an inanimate object. One would assume it is a war on drug DEALERS, except when you realize that the only reason drug dealers are in business in the first place is because drugs are illegal. It is actually a war on drug USERS: we consider them criminals and delinquents and we don't care about their rights. He isn't on TV demonstrating crack cocaine and trying to get the country riled up against common drug users like our friend Bush 41 did in the eighties, and he has a history of leniency on the subject. Maybe he made the impossibly complex connection that by keeping drugs illegal, we open up a marvelous opportunity for foreign terrorists to come to America and receive immediate funding for bomb-making operations, or the fact that the entire WoD is on shaky legal grounds as it is, or the fact that the WoD is incredibly expensive and an utter failure. At any rate, he deserves recognition for working to bring peace to this war.

3) WAR ON HOMOSEXUALS- Obama hasn't yet ended don't ask don't tell, but at least he has the disposition to do it. You will all be angry that this isn't enough, but that's because you don't realize that when the leader of the free world says something, it has repercussions that are meaningful. Saying "I'll fix the economy" is useless, but saying "I will end DADT" has meaning even if he doesn't get it done. The President has done a god job in this war already by making the moral contribution. I wish him luck in his efforts and hopefully we will someday consider homosexuals full-fledged people...

4) WAR ON MEXICANS- Many conservatives want Mexicans to go back to Mexico, because they hope we all don't understand basic economics and the fact that they don't just all want to come over here to live on welfare. It's hard to believe, but Mexicans can actually do work too! And when they add to our economy, they offset what they take from us. By not supporting staunch immigration policies, Obama is doing a good job by not perpetuating this war.

5) WAR ON NON-CHRISTIANS- Our previous President was essentially waging a war on non-Christians, Americans and not, by telling us that his answer to some of our problems was to pray. If Bush 43 prays, that is his own business, but his words work to marginalize atheist politicians who have a hell of a time getting into office without the evangelical vote. Christians are inherently war-like: they believe the rest of the 4.5 Billion people in the world are going to burn and rot and die in hell for eternity for simply not believing in their particular brand of superstition. Mix this nonsense in with politics, and we have a problem. Obama is Christian, and openly; I know. You see, if Obama was an atheist then we wouldn't be having this conversation about him because he would never have made it to the White House - he wouldn't even have made it to the senate. Obama has done a good job in this war by not catering to Christian morals in legislation. By downplaying his Christian side he also makes peace with other religions, which reduces attacks on our country.

6) WAR ON NON-PATRIOTS- Our previous President established the Department of Homeland Security, which was on page 5 of his Nazi textbook (where the word actually originates). President Obama has yet to work on further curtailing our civil rights, damaging habeus corpus, passing USA PATRIOT act-type legislation, etc. While Obama did vote originally for the PATRIOT Act, it was passed before anyone had a chance to read it and Obama has been working to to reverse some of its provisions, including closing Guantanamo Bay and releasing some of the executive powers it generated.

7) WAR ON THE ENVIRONMENT- Obama hasn't continued the war on the environment like some of his predecessors either. I could write an entire book on what Reagan and the Bush twins did to gut environmental funding and legislation. Obama is a welcome change from this state of mind and has yet to pul off a slime-ball move like putting ranchers in charge of the Bureau of Land Management or lowering standards to allow his buddies to stay in business.

8) WAR ON POVERTY- An otherwise noble cause - if we were fighting it from the other side. The top 1% have been getting richer and richer by taking more and more of our resources. Pensions, 401k, basic medical resources... They are experts at squeezing more and more out of us so they can have an extra mansion somewhere in the bahamas with a garage full of Lambhorginis, while conservatives tell us that the poor just aren't trying hard enough and get what they deserve. Obama's healthcare fight speaks for itself, and is in itself enough reason for this award. He is fighting against the war on the poor and should be duly recognized.

Because of these 8 "wars" that Obama does not wage, as other Presidents in the past have, I believe he was a good candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize and deserved it. It would be hard to find someone that is better qualified than he.


Nobel winners in the past have been men, women, and organizations such as Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, and the United Nations Children's Fund. Now I ask what had Obama done as of February 1st and what has he done as of now that is up to par with men and women as mentioned above. The truth is he has not done anything yet that makes him deserve it. That does not mean he never will because he still has 3 years left and potentially 4 more. So he still has plenty of time left to do great things but so far he has not done anything to truly deserve the award.

I will now talk about all the points that Pro has made.

1) WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST- Pro says that Obama has redefined why we are there and is setting us up to end the war and get out. Obama has already ordered 17,000 more troops there and may potentially send 40,000 more. How is that ending the war and getting our troops out?

2) WAR ON DRUGS- The only thing Pro says here regarding Obama is that he has not tried to get everyone riled up against drugs and that in the past he has been lenient on the subject. Why does this make him qualified to receive the Nobel?

3) WAR ON HOMOSEXUALS- Here the argument is "Obama hasn't yet ended don't ask don't tell, but at least he has the disposition to do it." Once again just because you want to do something that does not in anyway mean you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

4) WAR ON MEXICANS- Again all Pro says is that Obama has not increased or encouraged this war. And once again I ask why does that qualify him for the Nobel?

5) WAR ON NON-CHRISTIANS- Obama has not catered to non Christians and downplayed the fact that he is a Christian. Thus he is reducing attacks on our country. If this is true then why after his being elected has there already been arrests made to prevent a terrorist attack. Also the same question needs to be asked does this really make him worthy of the Nobel?

6) WAR ON NON-PATRIOTS- "While Obama did vote originally for the PATRIOT Act, it was passed before anyone had a chance to read it". So Obama voted on something he had not even read? Also Pro says he is working to close Guantanamo Bay and get rid of some of the executive powers it caused. Has any of this been done yet? No.

7) WAR ON THE ENVIRONMENT- Here once again it is said Obama did not try to push on this war like predecessors. Where is the accomplishment in that?

8) WAR ON POVERTY- Pro says that Obama' s health care fight proves he is fighting poverty, so he deserves the award. No reform has been passed yet therefore nothing has been accomplished and he does not yet deserve the award.

Overall Pro has simply stated over and over how Obama has not pushed any Conservative agendas and only Liberal agendas. Pro has repeatedly compared Obama to past presidents as if United States Presidents are the only ones eligible for the award. He has also repeatedly stated how Obama has all of these good intentions. But an award is based off of accomplishment. Millions of people all around the world have great ambitions but that does not qualify them for the Nobel. Obama may, in the future, make achievements worth receiving the Nobel over. But as of now he has not and therefore did not deserve the Nobel Prize, especially not in February after just being in office one month.

Thank you for the debate and I wish you luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Like I tried making perfectly clear in my 1st round argument, a good portion of his "accomplishment" is simply the stances he's taken on the issues and the fact that he's made it to the very top with these stances. It's not just his stances, however, it is how he compares to his predecessors. Yes, he's followed the liberal agenda instead of a conservative one - this is of no relevance, however. It just so happens that the liberal agenda is more peaceful, and it would be hard to see how a conservative could win a peace prize based on the fact that they are in fact waging the 8 wars I listed below and they consistently find themselves on an immoral footing.

Obama has ACCOMPLISHED becoming President - more than most of the other Nobel Prize winners have accomplished. Becoming President of the greatest country that ever lived is the ultimate achievement, and doing it on a peaceful platform is a great accomplishment in and of itself. Past Presidents have achieved becoming President but they have not achieved it with peaceful policies, which is why they are not eligible for the award. Reagan's history of anti-environmentalism, Bush 41's history of stoking the war on drugs, and Bush 43's obvious blunders in Iraq are good reasons why they would never be selected for an award like this. Moreover, these 3 have worked in favor of big business almost exclusively which condemns the proletariat to lower and lower standards of living. Obama has stepped up on behalf of the poor, and look what is happening to him: he is being chastised on a daily basis by the media and by people who don't want him to succeed with extinguishing these wars. Of course these same people also label themselves as patriots in order to avoid this conclusion...

The reason why I do not accept your argument is because conservatives are standing in Obama's way, and if he is not successful in achieving his peaceful intentions, it is only because of the opposition by conservatives. An analogy: if I go into a burning building to save lives and die before I save those lives, am I any less deserving of a medal of valor? Obama's lack of success is irrelevant; there is good reason why the Nobel committee chose him. All that matters is that Obama is fighting the good fight. Analogies that I have seen circulating on DDO are akin to "I want to find a cure for AIDS... Where's my Nobel Prize for science?" If someone was working on a cure for AIDS, and they came close to finding it but didn't quite find it, it is conceivable that they could win the prize even if they didn't technically cure AIDS. What matters here is that you make your mark, which doesn't necessarily mean you achieve your ultimate goal. Many Nobel Prize winners don't actually achieve their goals; they just make steps to bring them closer. If we sit back and demand that all our problems are solved before we give any recognition, then we won't get anywhere. What matters is that you raise the standard so that future generations have to do a better job based on your achievements. Future Presidents will have to do better if they want to fill Obama's shoes, for these 8 reasons.

1) Middle East: Those 17,000 troops are going to Afghanistan, not Iraq. If he wants to use some of our troops in the Middle-East to assist other countries in anti-terror efforts, then no one is going to have a problem with that. Our problem lies with the questionable invasion of Iraq to "spread freedom" that had nothing to do with Al-Queda or 9/11. As far as Iraq is concerned, our troops are over there already and it is pretty well agreed upon at this point that we can't just bring them all home at once, less we cause chaos. Obama has done everything that anyone could possibly ask of him at this point in order to bring a reasonable end to the Iraq conflict: he has set an official end date to combat operations in Iraq and made a timetable for their immediate and steady removal until the vast majority are gone; the only ones left will be the ones the Iraqis ask for themselves to help them maintain order. This mess that Bush 43 created will take time to clean up, and there is no magic button to press to immediately end it.

2) WoD: Like I said, Obama has a history of leniency concerning the WoD. Contrast this with Bush 41, or John McCain, or any other conservative who persecutes drug users as evil, and you can see that his "peaceful" intentions are clear. If every politician took Obama's lead, we wouldn't have this WoD and we would be in a better position right now. Again, as a high ranking political official, his word carries great weight even if he doesn't technically stop the WoD. It's the same concept as if he were to go on TV and endorse Coca-Cola... Whether or not Coke's profits immediately increase or not is irrelevant; the President just endorsed Coke and that carries much weight.

3) Gay rights: Obama is making great strides with gay rights, and if conservatives strike him down we should not go after Obama; we should support his effort with an official acknowledgment, like the Nobel Peace Prize. If and when homosexuals are ever considered full-fledged people, his efforts will be recognized as integral in their achievement. I would think this situation, in fact, is inevitable.

4) Immigration: Obama has made progress in this area, most recently in Prince William County in Virginia. People are accusing him of "watering down" immigration control, because they are mad about his efforts there. Again, we should not sit back and wait for him to end the entire immigration issue entirely before we recognize his contribution.

5) Christian monopoly: I'm not really following your point here... I'll let my original post stand unless you reword it.

6) Patriotism: Obama has already ordered GITMO closed, and banned the use of torture. The rest is just red tape while they get it done. His timeline was "less than a year" which has not run out yet.

7) Environment: While previous administrations have been consistently reversing environmental legislation, Obama has changed course. He has been passing regulations on climate control and energy, and it is clear that we are back on the right track on this subject. Again, this is a stark contrast to his predecessors.

8) Poverty: Obama's healthcare reform fight speaks for itself: he is pushing hard for healthcare reform, and being chastised daily for it. If conservatives strike it down and we turn to Obama as a failure, then it is our own faults, not Obama's. He cannot single-handedly push this bill through without our support. No single person, President or not, can do this for us. We need to follow his lead and support his efforts to fix the system. His lead is established and is worth noting.

Obama cannot single-handedly end these wars; no one can because we are too far in and too culturally set in our ways. Obama is moving us in the right direction and he is setting new standards. These standards are why he deserves the Prize. Yes, other Presidents are not the only ones eligible for the prize, but it is how Obama stands out in relation to these other Presidents (his peers) that makes him shine so brightly. People keep saying "Obama's not doing anything"... I hear it every day. This couldn't be farther from the truth, however. He is slowly and surely making the most positive of differences in this country while he navigates the fierce partisanship and misplaced pride that bar his way. If you haven't checked lately, Republicans make up half the population and half the government and they are doing everything in their power to sabotage his efforts just so they can get the satisfaction of saying that he didn't do anything. It's pretty funny, actually, if you think about it. Half the time they are whining about how little he does, and the other half they are whining about how angry they are about all he is doing...


Pro starts off in saying that Obama's accomplishment has been in the stances he has taken in all of the "wars" "and the fact that he's made it to the very top with these stances." But taking a stance is not an accomplishment an accomplishment is defined in the dictionary as "an act or instance of carrying into effect; fulfillment." Obama has not carried anything into effect yet with these wars. Taking a stance is not enough he needs to do something, he may very well do something in the future of great merit. But as of now he hasn't so he didn't deserve the award.

Pro also goes on to say that it is not just these stances but it is how these stances compare to past Presidents. So what about every liberal President we have ever had, do they all deserve the award too for their stances? Pro also makes it sound as if the only people eligible for this award are US Presidents but anyone in the entire world can receive the award. So we can not only compare what Obama has done to past Presidents but we must compare what he has done with every other person in the world.

I would also like to say here once again that what did Obama do as of February 1 of this year. He had barely been in office for a month! He had not done anything even close as of then to merit the Nobel Peace Prize.

Next Pro says that the only reason Obama has not done anything is because of the conservative opposition and that the conservatives are stopping him. The democrats have a huge majority in Congress, they can even override a filibuster. The only "conservative" opposition Obama is experiencing is from talk show hosts like Rush and Glenn Beck and their supporters. The conservatives do not have enough power in government to stop him. So that argument is completely false.

Pro also makes the comparison of how if he died in a fire for trying to save people would not he still receive a medal? Yes you very well might, but Obama is in no fire because once again he has the majority in Congress, and do you know how he got elected? He got elected when the majority of people in the country voted for him.

Pro also makes a very good comparison of "I want to find a cure for AIDS... Where's my Nobel Prize for science?" he says that if someone comes very close to finding the cure they might receive the Nobel. Okay, but Obama has not even come close to ending the "wars" Pro talks about. Simply taking a stance does not end the war. He may be "heading in the right direction" according to the liberal view point, but he needs to take some real steps in order to deserve the award.

1) Middle East: Pro says here that the troops being sent are going in to Afghanistan and yes I am well aware of that. He then goes onto say that it is okay to fight terrorism in Afghanistan but not Iraq. Because Iraq had nothing to do the 9/11 and Al-Queda. This is something I don't understand, can you please explain why it is okay to fight terrorism in Afghanistan but not Iraq. Also I would like to point out here that sending more troops into a country to fight is not peace it is war.

2) War on Drugs: Here Pro once again says that Obama has a history of leniency and has peaceful intentions. Then if you look at round one he basically says that Obama has realized that we should legalize drugs. Now I could go into all of the negative effects that illegal drugs have but I really don't think it is necessary. So instead I would just like to ask how is being lenient on illegal drug users and allowing them to break the law some great accomplishment? Why does that mean he should win the Nobel? Frankly it doesn't all that it means is that he does not uphold the law.

3) Gay Rights: Pro says Obama is making great strides and if conservatives strike him down it is not his fault. I have two problems here: one is what are these "great strides" he is making because simply being for gay rights does not mean he is making "great strides." My second point here is a repeat and again it is that conservatives don't have the power to stop him.

4) Immigration: Here Pro says that Obama has made progress. Well, can you please give some specific examples of what he has actually done. Because all I have heard is Obama once again being lenient in this area just as he is in the war on drugs. In addition to that as of February 1 what had he done because the resolution states "Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize" not Obama deserves.

5) War on non Christians: Pro did not understand what I was saying here so I will restate my previous argument. In the first round Pro said that Obama has not catered to Christians and downplayed the fact that he is a Christian. Pro also said that because of this it will reduce the attacks on our country. I said if this is true then why were there just recently arrests made in Denver and NYC to prevent terrorist attacks?

6) Patriotism: Here I would like to say that Pro ignored what I said about the Patriot Act.
Pro's argument here was that Obama ordered GITMO closed and the rest is just red tape. But here is an article saying otherwise:
"Reporting from Washington - Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said Tuesday that the Obama administration would probably not meet its Jan. 22 deadline for closing the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that the fate of more than 220 foreign terrorism suspects being held there might remain up in the air for months longer."

So they are not sure when they will be able to close Guantanamo, therefore Obama should not receive credit for it until it is done.

7) Environment: Once again Pro says we are on the right track with this and it is very different from Obama's predecessors. This is something that continues to be an argument before Pro but just because we are on the right track and Obama has "good" views doesn't mean he deserved the Nobel. Wait until the end of his first term and then let's see if he has made any accomplishments.

8) Poverty: Here Pro says that Obama is pushing for health care reform but he can not do it single handed. He does not have to because once again, Obama has the majority in both houses of Congress. Conservatives can not stand in his way! But why not wait too see if he actually gets it passed before we just hand him a Nobel Peace Prize.

Finally, Pro ends by saying that Obama can't single handedly end these wars and that half of the people and half of the government are conservatives. But once again this is not true as I have already explained several times Obama has the majority in Congress and the way he was elected is the majority of people voted for him.

Pro also says that compared to other Presidents Obama greatly outshines them. And in some people's eyes he may outshine other "Presidents" but I think Pro missed my point here what I said is that anyone can receive the prize. So has Obama outshined everyone in the entire world?

"A bipartisan group of six members of the U.S. Congress have nominated humanitarian Greg Mortenson of Bozeman for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Mortenson, 51, founder of the Central Asia Institute and co-author of the bestselling book "Three Cups of Tea," has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years."

Here is an example of a nominee who has truly accomplished something, in a few years time Obama may accomplish something but as of yet he has not and therefore did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Also just as an extra I would like to put in this link which has a video covering Obama's accomplishments:
Debate Round No. 2


Rob1Billion forfeited this round.


Unfortunately Pro has forfeited, so extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
Cool 2nd account bro.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
I would end up forfeiting rounds if I debated you right now, I simply don't have the time and you can't extend the time in between rounds past 72 hours. I wasn't able to finish this debate with you because I simply have too much work to do and as fun as DDO is, I simply can't make it a priority for obvious reasons. I will offer a compromise; First off, "christians are inherently war-like" is an absolute statement and isn't very workable. If you want to start a forum with something like "Christianity, mixed with gov't, tends to produce imperialism", or something like that I can stop by and comment when I have time.
Posted by kkdub 7 years ago
Saying that we had a Christian President is irrelevant. Every President we've ever had has been religous. As far as when crusades ended that was back in the 1200's. Yes Christians still send missionaries but that is peaceful which does not support that "Christians are inherently war-like".
So just to get this straight you are saying that Bush invaded Iraq because he was a Christian and wanted to spread Christianity? I would also like to ask how is Christianity being spread into Iraq through U.S. forces?
Perhaps we should have a debate over "Christians are inherently war-like."
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
It seems to me a convenient coincidence that we have a religious President, invading a country for questionable reasons, with the support of a mostly Christian government. Tell me this: exactly when did the crusades end? When did the justifications that were used to sustain the crusades go away? Christians still send missionaries out to other countries to spread Christianity, so you can hardly make the argument that they don't have the motive. With the motive established, I would add that Christians gained the means through the Christian President (W). 9/11, committed by religious anti-Christian zealots, gave you the reason to do it. The reason, motive, and means were all there t have yourselves a wonder modern-day attempt at spreading Christianity to the middle east.

I would not expect you to "think" of it that way yourself... The fact that you are Christian tells me that
A) you have invested an immense amount of your philisophical being into the tenets of Christianity
B) these tenets are weak; they require routine justification, especially in the modern world in the presence of science and increasingly open discussion on the topic (you no longer have the luxury of being able to have me chastized or killed for saying what I am saying right now)
C) this justification causes psychological defenses to rise up; psychological defenses are well understood and extending them to Christianity could hardly be considered unreasonable, considering that Christians often rate themselves based on how much they "believe" and how well they can justify their beliefs. It is as simple as the Emperor Wears no Clothes...
Posted by kkdub 7 years ago
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with spreading Christianity. I am Christian myself but I have never thought of the war as that, when we go over there we do not force them to convert to Christianity and so saying we invaded Iraq to spread our religion is false. I also do not think that going to war to spread Christianity is justifiable at all.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
As individuals, in their everyday life, yes. As a society, Christians are inherently imperialistic and war-like. The invasion of Iraq, for instance, was mostly perpetuated by the right - mostly Christians - who saw it as an opportunity to spread Christianity to the region (under the pretense of freedom). Of course Christians don't think of it this way - they see Christianity AS freedom. Spreading the religion has been and always will be a priority for Christians, and when it can be achieved through warfare it is seen as a necessary evil. Islamists are easily seen as inherently war-like, because of Jihad. However, it would be the Christians going to extreme measures in a Jihadist fashion, if Islamists controlled the most powerful country in the world, with the ultimate military might of the US Army and the immense riches we currently enjoy. If America was predominately Islam and it was the Christians out in the middle-east living under constant duress, this situation would be identical but reversed. It is sort of like the physics concept of anti-matter; we can't tell if our region of the universe is matter or anti-matter, because if we are made of anti-matter then we would simply call anti-matter "matter" and matter "anti-matter". It's all a function of perspective.

The only way to stop Jihad once and for all is to abandon religion entirely, so there is nothing left to fight about. This won't happen for at least another century, maybe several of them, but I promise you it will happen. Humankind never ceases to progress, and by all accounts, religion is a sort of regression from reason.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
"Christians are inherently war-like..."

I think you have seriously misrepresented Christians here.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
I like it.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
The following link explains the true reason that Obama deserves the Nobel:
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
As far as you other three, I'd appreciate some more pointed comments, if you will, so that I may have a chance to defend my position.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Da_King 7 years ago
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 Nails 7 years ago
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 wonderwoman 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Rob1Billion 7 years ago
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