The Instigator
joshandr30
Pro (for)
Losing
87 Points
The Contender
brittwaller
Con (against)
Winning
205 Points

Obama will not be our next President

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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: 9/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,633 times Debate No: 5395
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (157)
Votes (48)

 

joshandr30

Pro

Obama will not be our next President. I have three arguments for this stance on this debate.

1.RACE-Unfortunately America is not ready for a African American President. Racism is not far enough in our past yet. I am a Union member. Out of the twenty seven people I work with there are three Republicans, including myself. The "dems" I work with were split, twenty for Clinton, four for Obama. When Clinton lost the nomination twenty of the "Dems" said they would NOT vote for Obama. Race was the main factor in this swing but the flag and his Pastor were also included in there switch. At least in the white blue collared class it would be safe to say this is a common trend.

2.Division-The Democratic Party has developed deep division in this once honorable Party. With the Sixties brought Liberal ideas and the Democratic Party was quick to pick these votes up. In doing so they alienated there Party, but bonds are hard to break and the blue collar "dems" were and are not quick to switch sides. They are not only blue collared but they eat, drink, and bleed blue. But the because of this the Party was and still is divided today. A very wise man once said "A divided house can not stand". On the other hand the Republican Party is extraordinarily One house. I say this was the deciding factor in the last two elections and will remain a winning factor in this election as well.

3.INCOME-Money will play a part in the election as well. The average annual income of the constituents of the Democratic Party is twenty-five thousand or less. Because of the demographics of the Democratic Party a large number of voters will not be able to make it to the polls without support from the Democratic Party, and most will not vote because of issues in their personal lives that will keep them from the voters booth. I know the Democratic Party does a very good job at getting to these voters and makes sure they make it to the vote but they can not get all of them. With out every single vote the election will be lost. The Party already lost about a third of the voters when they nominated Obama, without this third the election will be extremely hard to win. With the extremely wise choose of a female for VP the Republican Party has seen a enthusiasm I have never seen my life.
brittwaller

Con

I want to thank joshandr30 for posting this debate. May it be a good one!

Of course,
Negated: "Obama will not be our next President."

This sentence is both the topic of the debate and the debate resolution. joshandr30, as the instigator and the PRO, assumes the burden of proof. Unfortunately, this statement is not capable of being proven, as the election is 49 days away at the time I am writing this, and this debate will be over before the result is known.

Refutations

"RACE-Unfortunately America is not ready for a African American President..."
-Fortunately, this conclusion is entirely false from the data my opponent provided as the basis for the conclusion. The most that could be correctly concluded from my opponent's premise is, "Twenty people that I work with in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, are rascists and are not ready for a President that is only half-white." My opponent's workmates are not exactly a correct population sample, to say the least.

"Division-The Democratic Party has developed deep division in this once honorable Party..."
-An *almost* correct statement. Any division today is because of Obama's not choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate. And even this wound is in the process of healing - Clinton went above and beyond the call of duty to give all of her support to Obama at the DNC.

"They are not only blue collared but they eat, drink, and bleed blue. But [] because of this the Party was and still is divided today."
-Please clarify. So where are all of these "blue" people, politically?

"On the other hand the Republican Party is extraordinarily One house."
-Really? One house of what, exactly? Conservatives? I think not. I'm positive any true conservative will tell you that the Republican Party is, as of late, anything but conservative. Conservatism is about small government, reduced spending, and supposedly, "values." Do I even have to finish this point, in light of the expansion of government power, the tip of the scale from an economic surplus to a multi-trillion dollar deficit, and Bush and Cheney's explicit manipulation (READ: the use of ANY means to achieve ANY end) of the American people? Then there is the hypocrisy of people like Larry Craig, but that's a separate issue entirely (and not a point).

"I say this was the deciding factor in the last two elections and will remain a winning factor in this election as well."
-Also incorrect. The deciding factor in 2000 was the Supreme Court, and in 2004 it was the complete lack of competence from the Democratic party.

"INCOME-Money will play a part in the election as well."
-Indeed. I'm sure that it will. However, my opponent will have to back up his points in this paragraph with sources before I pick them apart. To quash the one point that he did make: Obama has raised more than enough campaign money to send buses around every major city and town in America on election day, picking up voters and taking them to the booths. Not a problem:)

"With the extremely wise [choice] of a female for VP the Republican Party has seen [an] enthusiasm I have never seen [in] my life."
-I would not say wise so much as politically expedient. Good work, in a cynical and Machiavellian kind of way, by the McCain camp on this one. It was disingenuous to pick a female - they did it for pure political effect and not substance.

My argument: Obama *might* not be the next President.

The real reasons Obama may lose:

1. Ignorance: Under this category falls those voters who are white (or other) and will not vote for Obama because he is black (mulatto, actually), blacks who will not vote for him because he isn't "black enough," women and men who will not vote for him because Hillary isn't on the ticket, women who will vote for McCain *just* because he has a female on the ticket, and those that will not vote for him because they would rather have a beer and a barbecue with McCain, or rather have McCain change their car tire when they get a flat.

2. "Legalism": There are already thousands of lawyers working for both campaigns, and it seems inevitable with the closeness of the race and how much is at stake, historically and politically, that they will swoop in and take over, much like 2000.

3. Karl Rove: He works with the McCain campaign (all while being an objective consultant on Fox News), and no Democrat can compete with him, either strategically or tactically. His "style" will end up dragging both candidates through the mud and destroy whatever confidence anyone has left in the American political process.

Back to you, joshandr30

Britt
Debate Round No. 1
joshandr30

Pro

Thank you for arguing for me.

Obama will not be our next President

1. Ignorance: Under this category falls those voters who are white (or other) and will not vote for Obama because he is black (mulatto, actually), blacks who will not vote for him because he isn't "black enough," women and men who will not vote for him because Hillary isn't on the ticket, women who will vote for McCain *just* because he has a female on the ticket, and those that will not vote for him because they would rather have a beer and a barbecue with McCain, or rather have McCain change their car tire when they get a flat.

2. "Legalism": There are already thousands of lawyers working for both campaigns, and it seems inevitable with the closeness of the race and how much is at stake, historically and politically, that they will swoop in and take over, much like 2000.

3. Karl Rove: He works with the McCain campaign (all while being an objective consultant on Fox News), and no Democrat can compete with him, either strategically or tactically. His "style" will end up dragging both candidates through the mud and destroy whatever confidence anyone has left in the American political process.

You must prove that Obama will be our next President. So far you are not doing so well. My arguments in the first round were exactly what they are, arguments for the first round. In the second round I will go into the rest of my argument, that you have already lined out for me quite well. Thank you. Remember, we are debating on whether or not Obama will be our next President. I say he will not, you say he will being the negative. I like your username, does it have any special meaning? And the picture on your profile, who is that? You? Your turn:).

P.S. We are not debating on the morals of the campaigns or the voters, we are just debating whether or not Obama will be our next President. Try in the next round to give me some reasons WHY Obama will be our next President.
brittwaller

Con

"Thank you for arguing for me."

-I didn't argue for you. Let's see what I did do: I corrected your facts, your spelling, and your grammar (btw, you're welcome;), asked questions which you did not answer, and then went on to make my own arguments for my position.

"You must prove that Obama will be our next President."

-Incorrect. Besides the fact that this cannot be proven or disproven, as I already told you, neither my arguments nor my position are restricted to parameters you set during your R2. I am not arguing that Obama will be President, I am arguing that he *might* not be President, and you are arguing that he *will* not be President. There is an important difference, whether you see it or not. Also, as I said, the burden of proof is on you, once again to prove something that cannot be proven, and you just burned a round on nothing, but that's ok because you didn't really have a choice.

"I like your username, does it have any special meaning? And the picture on your profile, who is that? You? Your turn:)"

-Ok... To answer: Not really, Dr. Haustein, and no:)

One more to go

Britt
Debate Round No. 2
joshandr30

Pro

I feel so bad, I can't believe this happened. I guess I will have to concede. I will now con....... . Just kidding. I do feel bad though. So far my opponent has been arguing about words and what they mean. Hey by the way, thank you so much for correcting my grammar and spelling. I'm sure I could not have made it through this debate with out it, I hope all the people that read this argument will vote one point for Britt. Now let me get down to the point so you do not waste your last opportunity to at least argue for your position, so far all you have done is argue for my stance in this debate. You have focused a lot of attention on the word *will*. You say that because I said "Obama *will* not be our next President" that I have to prove that and I can not because the election is in the future. If the definition or meaning of the word *will* that I used in that sentence was in fact the definition or meaning that I was implying when I made the debate then you would be right. Let me run a few things by you before give you some reference.

It *will* rain tomorrow.

I *will* see you tomorrow.

Now can I prove either of these until tomorrow? I can not, but you are forgetting the complexity of the English Language. Now pay close attention.

Modal verb
A verb that, when used with other verbs, expresses such things as certainty, possibility, wishes, or intentions. The main modal verbs are: ma/might; will/would; can/could; shall/should; must.

*Will* is a model verb.

Prediction - Will and Shall

Will and shall can be used to predict that an event or an action will take place or will occur. The model verbs can be used to make a prediction about an event or action about the future.

Will: Expresses future plans or predictions

Examples: She will graduate this year.

He will not attend the concert.

Alright, that is enough. All these examples were taken form English Language learning web sites. You can look them up for yourself.

I said "Obama will not be our next President", because *will* is a model verb use to predict. So when I say "Obama will not be our next President" I was simply making a prediction. And a prediction does not have to be proved until the time of the action that is predicted. A prediction can be argued or debated about but does not have to be proved.

Now I hope you can swallow your pride and go ahead and start giving some arguments against by prediction. If you continue to go on and on about the word *will* I'm afraid you might not like the results.

Now I will go into your arguments for my side.

1. Ignorance: Under this category falls those voters who are white (or other) and will not vote for Obama because he is black (mulatto, actually), blacks who will not vote for him because he isn't "black enough," women and men who will not vote for him because Hillary isn't on the ticket, women who will vote for McCain *just* because he has a female on the ticket.

Yes, thank you for agreeing for my comments on Racism. This is just one of the reason Obama will not be our next President. My little model was just a demonstration of the ignorance that not only effects the people I work with but also the millions of Democrats across the nation.

2. "Legalism": There are already thousands of lawyers working for both campaigns, and it seems inevitable with the closeness of the race and how much is at stake, historically and politically, that they will swoop in and take over, much like 2000.

Correct again! There are lawyers working to ensure the election, just as they did in 2000. We are not debating ethics or morals in this debate.

3. Karl Rove: He works with the McCain campaign (all while being an objective consultant on Fox News), and no Democrat can compete with him, either strategically or tactically. His "style" will end up dragging both candidates through the mud and destroy whatever confidence anyone has left in the American political process.

Absolutely right again! You do understand this debate is not about the Republicans playing fair or not, this debate is about "Obama will not be our next President". But, in the end you are right. The Republicans have an army of strategists that are working on ways to ensure the Presidency for McCain. Right or wrong this is yet another reason why Obama will not be our next President. Just look at the swift boat deal, slaughtered the Kerry campaign. And it was not even "Bush" who put it out, classic politics.

And now on to the last argument.

My opponent said
"and those that will not vote for him because they would rather have a beer and a barbecue with McCain, or rather have McCain change their car tire when they get a flat"

You are again totally with me on this one. You may think that guys like me are knuckle dragging, beer swigging, country music listening hillbilly's. And you are correct. That is me in a nutshell. Even if you do not like it this is the makeup of the glorious country that we live in, GOD BLESS AMERICA! We like a guy who we know we could go to his house, crack open a cold beer and watch the Super Bowl and feel completely at home. Guys like Obama look like a glass of stale water to guys like me. Shoot, Hillary is more of a man's man's then Obama. This is not meant to be a slander against Obama, just a honest observation.

"On the other hand the Republican Party is extraordinarily One house."
-Really? One house of what, exactly? Conservatives? I think not

Well, I did not say conservatives I said Republicans. Please do not twist my words like this, gentlemen do not behave in this manner.

"Division-The Democratic Party has developed deep division in this once honorable Party..."
-An *almost* correct statement. Any division today is because of Obama' s not choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

That is not the only division, I believe you know this though. The Democratic began as a party for the working man. And this was the only point in time this once great party was a united party. But after Homosexuals, Pro-Choice, Socialist (welfare) and Communism began to infest the Party it went down hill fast.

And statements like this do not help Obama at all.

Barack Obama "Pennsylvania rural citizens "cling" to their religion and guns out of embittered economic desperation".

Obama lost his lead in the polls when a women was added to the Republican ticket. Let me guess, this has nothing to do with it. The goal of the Republican campaign is to elect there nominee. A woman as VP was a wise choice because of the boost in the polls.

Now I urge you to start giving some kind of argument for you to be the negative in this debate. Something would be good at this point. I started this debate to see what Obama could possibly have on his side. Please do not forget you already agreed for me, at this point in the debate it would be wise to stop wasting time with word plays and going over the arguments I have already stated. This has been a great debate and I have enjoyed it. I only wish you could have done more to debate me on issues other than a word. I know you wanted to kill this debate quickly but I believe this tactic has backfired. I urge you to drop the smug attitude and try to concentrate your arguments on why Obama will be our next President. You have already made my points for me in this debate, if you start now you can give some arguments for your stance.

Obama will not be our next President. I know this statement probably enrages you and other Democrats. I do not think it has this effect on you because I am lying, you have already agreed me on y stance. I feel it makes you and to the point of sweating palms and racing heart beat because you know Obama will not be our next President too. Stop and look the issues from a realistic standpoint and you may be able to drop the naive stance and come over to the right side.
brittwaller

Con

Touch´┐Ż. Bravo. Good show, old chap.

I'll go inch by inch on this one.

"If the definition or meaning of the word *will* that I used in that sentence was in fact the definition or meaning that I was implying when I made the debate then you would be right."

--What? So you used the word "will," but meant something entirely different? OK...

"It *will* rain tomorrow.
I *will* see you tomorrow.
Now can I prove either of these until tomorrow? I can not, but you are forgetting the complexity of the English Language."

--My level of familiarity with the English language is irrelevant, for you just admitted, after having gone to all this trouble, that you cannot prove either statement until it actually happens.

Thank you for your extended, if fatally flawed, English lesson. I can see why you didn't post a link to the sites. I found your primary source to be hilarious, indeed.
First you went here: http://www.tiscali.co.uk...
And then here, a site on grammar that proves itself unworthy of being cited because of IT'S OWN USE OF GRAMMAR, PUNCTUATION, AND FORM:
http://www.english-the-easy-way.com...

There are no such things as "model verbs." In case the reader doesn't feel like getting a good laugh from English the easy way by following the link, let me give some examples of the site's fine use of English:

" The following model verbs *are used to with* the present tense: can, will, shall, ought to, must, need, may"
"Will and shall can be used to *state predict* that an event or an action will take place or will *occur The* model verbs can used to make a prediction about an event or action about the future."

--Again, they are modal verbs, not model verbs, but the grammar site must not be too interested in grammar, as my examples prove. (A good slogan for them: English - so easy that it's wrong!)

"And a prediction does not have to be proved until the time of the action that is predicted. A prediction can be argued or debated about but does not have to be proved."

--That's nearing nonsense. You have already said that your job in this debate is to *prove* that Obama will not be the next President. And in the case of a "burden of *proof*" you do have to prove what you are saying.

Even further, just so we're clear, you're expressing simple futurity in the third person, not *modal* futurity, in which case you would have said, "Obama shall not be our next President."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Will denotes certainty, whereas might denotes possibility. I'm sorry that you went to all that trouble for nothing, and I apologize to the reader for this grammatical detour.

"My little model was just a demonstration of the ignorance that not only effects the people I work with but also the millions of Democrats across the nation."

--1. Your "little model" was not a model at all.
2. Wait - didn't the "millions of Democrats across the nation" NOMINATE OBAMA IN THE FIRST PLACE? They did indeed. Moot point.

"We are not debating ethics or morals in this debate."

--I never said we were.

The Kicker: "You are again totally with me on this one. You may think that guys like me are knuckle dragging, beer swigging, country music listening hillbilly's. And you are correct. That is me in a nutshell. Even if you do not like it this is the makeup of the glorious country that we live in, GOD BLESS AMERICA! We like a guy who we know we could go to his house, crack open a cold beer and watch the Super Bowl and feel completely at home. Guys like Obama look like a glass of stale water to guys like me. Shoot, Hillary is more of a man's man's then Obama. This is not meant to be a slander against Obama, just a honest observation."

--Wow. Here you literally concede your own ignorance. Nice try, though, separating it from the other "ignorance" points I made. Is it not self-evident that drinking beer, watching the Super Bowl, and changing flat tires HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH BEING THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD? Don't you think the prerequisites should be set to a higher standard than what you want to find in a neighbor or drinking buddy? People loved Bush just for that reason, and look where we are. The man can't even say a complete sentence correctly, but he's been the most powerful person in the world for eight years.

Also, I never thought you were any particular type of person, and certainly never implied your strawman/self-imposed ad hominem argument. And if any readers think that I was implying something by putting my words the way I did in my R1, understand that I am from Alabama as well.

"Well, I did not say conservatives I said Republicans. Please do not twist my words like this, gentlemen do not behave in this manner."

--I was asking what you meant by "the Republican Party is extraordinarily One House," not twisting your words. I still don't know what you meant by that. I simply meant that, in general, Democrats are considered liberals and Republicans are considered conservatives, but that this is not the case when it comes to the current incarnation of the Republican Party. I'm certain that actual conservatives will agree with me.

"Now I urge you to start giving some kind of argument for you to be the negative in this debate."

--I have given my arguments. They do not have to be contraries. I suggest you pay more attention to your resolutions in the future to avoid this kind of problem. You could have simply said, "No semantics, please" in your opening argument and this would have not happened (at least from me it wouldn't have.) Otherwise, everything is on the table to be attacked, in any way I (or whoever your opponent may be) deem appropriate.

"Obama will not be our next President. I know this statement probably enrages you and other Democrats. I do not think it has this effect on you because I am lying, you have already agreed me on y stance. I feel it makes you and to the point of sweating palms and racing heart beat..."

--What? First, I am not a Democrat, but I do happen to be voting for Obama. Second, the rest of your statement makes no sense.

"I urge you to drop the smug attitude and try to concentrate your arguments on why Obama will be our next President."

--Trust me, I am far from smug, although my tone may indicate otherwise. However, I urge you, and whoever else, to stop trying to elect your drinking buddy to the highest office in the world. You wanted a debate on the issues, but from your own testimony you don't even vote on the issues.

"Obama lost his lead in the polls when a women was added to the Republican ticket. Let me guess, this has nothing to do with it. The goal of the Republican campaign is to elect there nominee. A woman as VP was a wise choice because of the boost in the polls."

--Actually, as of today, September 17/18, Obama and McCain are still basically tied, except that a small lead has again emerged for Obama, probably because of Palin the moronic albatross hanging from the neck that supports McCain's increasingly senile head. She was a last-minute choice to stir up controversy among women who felt slighted because Hillary isn't on the Democratic ticket. Her favorability ratings have been decreasing daily. You cannot tell me that she and McCain haven't made fumble after fumble. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is and thinks that victims of rape and incest should not be able to have abortions. McCain can't remember how many homes he owns and thinks that the economy is fundamentally sound. Sheesh.

Readers, you don't even have to pay attention to my last paragraph if you think I am unfairly introducing new points in R3. Any way you slice it, the election will be close. Obama might not be our next President. Then again, he might be.

Either way, Vote CON

Peace
Debate Round No. 3
157 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AnimeFanTony 8 years ago
AnimeFanTony
Lol Pro is winning by a lot yet Con won in real life so he should win.
Also pro did u fail to notice that Obama won by alot so America has a whole refutes all your points.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Well con wins in real life anyway.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Would you care to elaborate? Please?
Posted by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
This became more of a pissing contest than a debate.

I actually disagreed with the instigator until the contender made an idiot of his/herself.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
I simply meant that at the DNC she made a big whoopie in the way that she endorsed Obama. She certainly hasn't done much since then.
Posted by the_conservative 8 years ago
the_conservative
brittwaller, that is kind of an exaggeration saying Hilary Clinton "went above and beyond the call of duty", don't you think? The call of duty? The election is not that dangerous and honorable to put it in that perspective. also, her emotion when she said she supported Obama was not that happy about giving it to Obama.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Correction: That's what separates you and ME!
Actually, I'm a strict constructionist conservative. I was and am - a SCC since well before you were born. One who is limited in my reading ability, in that even though I can find a declared right to gun ownership that isn't there, I can't find a right to abortion (murder of innocent babies) that is there. I know, I'm rambling.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
"No, it is you who are trying to change the subject..."

-So I'm the one that brought up abortion? ok...

I may not have been able to answer the question, but then again I'm not running for the second-highest office in the land. She had no idea what he was even talking about, in any sense. That's what separates you and I: you think our leaders should be just as stupid as you are, while I think intelligence is a prerequisite for being in office.

"You are good at avoiding introspection, but I do believe that I pierced your shield."

-lol OK...

"Sarah Palin: a moron? There is absolutely no evidence to refute her brilliance. You should be so accomplished as she. I'd select her to be president before OB as dog-catcher."

-And this is why you're a moron as well. You're obviuosly a neocon ideologue, taken with the fact that Palin is like a evangelical dominatrix who wants to spank you while you pray. I mean, I'd do her, but I believe in birth control (condoms, etc.) so I doubt if it would work out. Her brilliance? LMFAO! I didn't exactly judge her on the one question alone, you know. There's the fact that she doesn't read, she believes in witch doctors and being healed by them, and if she isn't reciting talking points she is unable to make complete sentences. On the issues, being against abortion even in cases of rape and incest is enough for me. Is she kidding?! Unfortunately she isn't. Give me a freakin break.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
No, it is you who are trying to change the subject, which is that Gibson's staff equipped him with an obvious gotcha (very esoteric) question, for which he had been prepped with a poorly researched topic and an inadequate answer. Gibson should fire his staff-worker and admit that he was entrapped by his own scam.
Meanwhile, pea-brains who read little outside of the Dailykos, go on displaying their consummate ignorance, by repeating what they are certain was a successful gotcha.
You are good at avoiding introspection, but I do believe that I pierced your shield.
Sarah Palin: a moron? There is absolutely no evidence to refute her brilliance. You should be so accomplished as she. I'd select her to be president before OB as dog-catcher.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
No, I don't hate her at all. I don't know where you get this stuff, but it certainly is entertaining. I do think she is a moron, but that doesn't amount to hatred. So you missed me with that one and so you change the subject to abortion. Reaching a little far, aren't you? But keep it up. So funny;)
48 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SactownBoom 1 year ago
SactownBoom
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I can still vote on this?
Vote Placed by Brendan21 6 years ago
Brendan21
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 debateboy 6 years ago
debateboy
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 BeautifulDisaster 6 years ago
BeautifulDisaster
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 Larsness 7 years ago
Larsness
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 Conor 7 years ago
Conor
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 marin24 8 years ago
marin24
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by regperez 8 years ago
regperez
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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 MewxVenus 8 years ago
MewxVenus
joshandr30brittwallerTied
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