The Instigator
Revid
Con (against)
Tied
18 Points
The Contender
scorpionclone
Pro (for)
Tied
18 Points

On 9/11, WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.

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
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,871 times Debate No: 4277
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (12)

 

Revid

Con

I am here to argue against the claim that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition.

I will ask that my opponent produce no more than 3 claims that point to a controlled demolition in order to allow us to examine these claims in detail.

I also would like my opponent to also, whenever possible to link to a source as I will do the same. Sources should not include links to videos without any timestamp or reason.

If space allows I would also like my opponent to explain a motive for destroying WTC 7.

I look forward to your opening argument.
scorpionclone

Pro

1. Any reference to the NIST report during this debate should be discarded and considered as "not credible" by the audience. Please review the following evidence and video footage to understand why.

http://video.google.com...

"……I haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, at the towers…."
NIST Engineer, John Goss – Denies the existence of Molten Steel

2. NIST's analysis of WTC 7
The fact that the government investigation after 7 years has failed to provide a complete investigation of WTC 7 is very telling at the least. The building in which was arguably the most unlikely to collapse, (never struck by a plane) in fact collapsed. We know that the leaseholder Silverstein gave the order to "pull it" meaning, demo the building on 9/11.

Many of the indications of foreknowledge of the attack have yet to be addressed by any official government report. For example, the 9/11 Commission Report, which describes the Commission as "chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks" fails to mention that the World Trade Center was leased to a private company for the first time in its history six weeks before the attack, and that security was handled by a company linked to the Bush family.
3. Silverstein gave the order to "pull it" that's demolition speak for blowing up a building.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Larry Silverstein, on 9/11

How long does it take for a building to be prepped for demolition?
Hours? Days? Weeks? How could the building have been demolished minutes after the order is given without intense and time consuming preparation?

4. Silverstein insured the WTC complex for a double terrorist attack 6 weeks before 9/11

"It is inconceivable that anyone could be running around placing explosives in exactly the right places all within seven hours. In fact, implosions take a minimum of two weeks and up to two months to plan and place the charges. The fire department of New York does not even train their personnel to do controlled demolition. They are done by highly skilled experienced specialists who plan and test far ahead."17

http://www.wtc7.net...

5. Eyewitness Accounts are damning evidence
http://www.prisonplanet.com...

First responders heard the countdown to building 7's collapse and ultimate destruction.
http://video.google.com...

The ultimate problem my opponent has in proving that WTC was not a controlled demolition is that he can't try and use jet fuel as the culprit here. In previous debates he has tried to say that towers 1 and 2 came down due to jet fuel, fire etc. Building 7 was never struck by a place, no jet fuel. There were isolated fires, as you can see the building in Madrid made out of the same material, burned for over 24 hours and never collapsed.

http://911research.wtc7.net...

Yet this building collapsed in 7 seconds. With no reason or explanation to this day my opponents main evidence the NIST. After 7 years, no report.

Sounds very questionable at the least.

I leave it to my opponent to prove that there was in fact other factors that could have caused building 7 to collapse other than a controlled demolition. There is no physical proof that a building made of steel and concrete has ever collapsed due to fire alone. Therefore the onus is on him to prove to the audience that this is not the case. That this was the first time in history a building has collapsed because of a few isolated fires. That when silverstein said "pull it", he meant something else.

I encourage the audience to vote for pro on the resolution. Stand for truth and not deception.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
Revid

Con

I would like the audience to take note how many claims my opponent brings up during his opening statement after I asked him to limit them to three. Not to mention how he try's to poison the well right off the bat with his attempt to discredit NIST.

First of all I don't need to reference the NIST report in this debate since like you said the report for WTC7 has not been released yet. I should not be wasting the audiences time defending John Goss' statement since it is off topic. However I will point out that I see no problem with his quote "I haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, at the towers". Seems factual to me. Have you seen the evidence? If so provide it. If you are using the "evidence" in the video then I will address those:

a) Molten material dripping from the tower - Could be and is most likely aluminum.
b)Equipment claw carrying red hot material - If this was molten how could it be picked up? The temperature needed to cause the steel to glow red is much less than what it takes to make it molten.
c)Firefighters saying that they saw molten steel - This could be molten aluminum, have you or any other "9/11 researcher" asked them if they can tell the difference by just looking at it? Also, since they witnessed this do they have questions as to the cause of the collapses? Are they shocked that the temperatures could have been hot enough to melt steel?

Given this I see no problem with Goss' quote. Also the speaker in that video says "theres video of it", where is this video of molten steel at ground zero?

<>

Are you asking for an incomplete investigation? If it were released in 2004 I wonder if you would have claimed that it was rushed. If you would like an explanation for the length of the investigation read number 14 here - http://wtc.nist.gov...

Claim #1 <>

<>

No controlled demolition expert uses the term "pull it" do describe a building implosion. The only context that "pull" is used is when demolishing smaller buildings, where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure with bulldozers etc.

The fact that you think Silverstein admitted to ordering the demolition of WTC7 on national television is laughable. A multi-million dollar insurance scam is foiled by Mr. Silverstein making a slip of the tongue. Here is a clarification by his spokesperson:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Here is a quote from one of those firefighters:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down.... I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out...They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street." - Richard Banaciski

And some more quotes describing the severity of 7 and the evacuation order.

"I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people." - Chief Daniel Nigro

"there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse." - Chief Cruthers

"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good..... eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good....Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see...... We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped." - Captain Chris Boyle

<>

Non sequitur.

Claim #2<>

Did he? Give me a source. He did however sign a 99-year lease on the entire WTC complex 6 weeks before. What you might be interested to know is that he was forced to take a $3.5 billion insurance policy to get this done. He originally only wanted to insure it for $1.5 billion but his lenders would not go lower than 3.5. I think your confusion is that he wanted $7.1 billion in insurance claims after 9/11 because he tried to argue that the attacks were two separate occurrences which should pay $3.5b each.

Claim #3<>

I will agree that the north wall took 7 seconds to collapse but the entire building took anywhere between 13 - 18 seconds. If you are watching misleading videos like this - I could see how you might think its only 7 seconds. However if you watch a video that includes the entire collapse - it is at least 13 seconds.

<>

No, the Windsor building was not made out of the same materials. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. The part that was similar to WTC7 was the steel around the core and upper floors past the 17th floor. It just so happens that that part of the building collapsed in 2 and a half hours. I think this example helps my side of the argument tremendously.

I don't have to prove that the building fell due to structural damage and the subsequent fires that resulted. The theory of controlled demolition has no merit. Alternate explanation should always be considered, however when there is no supporting evidence for them they should be scrapped. There are no signs of a controlled demolition at WTC7. No loud explosions which are heard in any building implosion, the building did not fall neatly into a pile as my opponent might have you believe, and there were no evidence of explosives found at the scene after the collapse. With all of this considered you would also ask yourself, if you are a critical thinking person: "what would the motive be for destroying building 7"?

I'll ask my opponent to respond to my rebuttals rather than bringing up new claims. He can either concede that I am correct or refute me on each point.
scorpionclone

Pro

<>

Let's address these issues then:

1.Silverstein made comments to "pull it" in reference to building 7

2.When Silverstein bought the WTC he also insured it at the same time, this is usually what you do when you buy a property, contrary to my opponent's opinion that you buy property and then insure it later.

3.Building 7 was never struck by a plane, yet it collapsed in 7 seconds. My opponent claims it was 13 seconds, but either way, it collapsed at free fall speed.

It seems he is so overwhelmed by them that they seem like more than he can handle.

<<"I haven't seen any evidence of molten steel, at the towers". Seems factual to me. Have you seen the evidence? If so provide it. If you are using the "evidence" in the video then I will address those:

a) Molten material dripping from the tower - Could be and is most likely aluminum….>>

Really? It could be aluminum? Do you have any references or proof to back up your claim? Or are you hypothesizing? This is only your opinion. In fact the proof I have provided is much more consistent with Thermite reactions than "aluminum" !!

Does this look like Aluminum to you? http://planetquo.net...
I submit that if there is evidence of molten steel.

Remember, my opponent has provided zero evidence that there was aluminum, and he denies that there is melted steel. Yet this is a steel column that has been literally melted.

<>

Can you? You can tell the difference between the two? The problem with your theory is that, you say the two look so similar, then in fact it "could" be thermite? Correct?

http://video.google.com...

1.

<< No controlled demolition expert uses the term "pull it" do describe a building implosion. The only context that "pull" is used is when demolishing smaller buildings, where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure with bulldozers etc.>>

http://www.thewebfairy.com...

http://www.thewebfairy.com...
In reference to bulding 6 the demolition expert uses the term "to pull" meaning demolish the building.

http://www.wtc7.net...
"An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building. "

My opponent has not provided any evidence to the contrary. Again I have provided additional evidence to prove my point by the added audio clip. I encourage the judges to fully investigate my claims, as my opponent hopes that you won't do, as you will discover some serious inconsistencies with his argument.

2.
<>

Did he? Give me a source. He did however sign a 99-year lease on the entire WTC complex 6 weeks before.>>
When you buy a house, do you buy homeowners insurance? Common sense would say that you have to otherwise; the bank won't approve the loan. Right? Yet my opponent contradicts himself here:
<>

When was he forced to take out this insurance policy? Was it taken out when Silverstein leased the building (6 weeks before the attacks?) or after he leased it? Doesn't make sense since this complex is worth a lot more than a house, and you have to have insurance for that. So obviously my opponent is applying the straw man theory, as if this is against the normal real estate practices, to require insurance.

http://www.loveforlife.com.au...
< (Representing the Port Authority of New York was Mr. Lewis Eisenberg, Chairman of the Port Authority for New York. Eisenberg, was also former chairman of Goldman Sachs Inc., and is currently the chairman of the Republican National Committee. )
The winning bid from Silverstein and Lowy was 3.2 Billion dollars. Silverstein and Lowy were required to make a down payment of $125,000,000.00. (According to the website "What Really Happened," Silverstein had two other financial backers, a Lloyd Goldman and a Joseph Cayre, who also put up a portion of the down payment.)

However, contrary to popular belief, Silverstein et.al., did not buy/purchase the WTC. The partnership only gained control of the WTC by obtaining from the P.A.N.Y. a 99 year lease in Buildings 1,2,4 and 5 and 9 and 400,000 square feet of retail space.
Mr. Silverstein immediately insured the complex for 3.6 billion dollars. This was accomplished under contract with Willis Group Holdings Ltd. who arranged and negotiated the coverage with a consortium of 25 insurance companies. >>

There you have, my opponent has provided no evidence, yet again I have provided the proof that Silverstein did in fact insure the building 6 weeks prior to the attacks. When he leased the properties.

3.
<>

Again my opponent has provided no evidence to support his claims but only conjecture and opinion.

<>

its location - It was centered around the vertical axis of the former building.
* its size - The pile from the 47-story b47-story building was less than two stories high.
* its tidiness - The pile was almost entirely within the footprint of the former building
http://www.wtc7.net...

The photo evidence on this site of building 7 clearly shows that the rubble is in a tidy pile.
Finally, I have clearly refuted all of my opponents arguments
Debate Round No. 2
Revid

Con

Revid forfeited this round.
scorpionclone

Pro

I will spend the first few minutes of my rebuttal addressing the violation of the debate by my opponent, seeing how he did not post his argument in the allotted 3 day time limit, (like this is not enough time) and then decided to post his Round 3 in the comments section. This is blatant violation of the rules since he is not limited to 8000 characters but can go on indefinitely. In addition, my opponent claims to have technically forfeit his round.

<< I am the one who technically forfeited.>>

Then he goes on to post his argument anyway. I implore the judges to take this into account when voting as my opponent's debating practices are unethical at best. I conclude that he has not responded to my rebuttal and conclude that each of my points were not properly refuted

1. Nevertheless, since my opponent concedes I will use this round to bring up additional observations of concern that lead us to believe that building 7 was in fact a controlled demolition.

"Sherlock Holmes once remarks how odd it is that a guard dog did not bark at a midnight intruder." Similarly curious is the total destruction of building 7 after it was never struck by a plane. Was the furthest distance from towers 1 and 2.
And never in history has a steel structured building collapsed due to fire at freefall speed. It is absolutely insane that people can believe that it just collapsed just because.

My opponent has yet to provide any other reasoning for the collapse. Not one reason. As I have provided several. Which he has been unable to refute successfully.

The following tenants occupied building 7 on 9/11

The mayors Emergency Command Center (how ironic)
The SEC
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
The Department of Defense (DOD)
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
The New York's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) were all tenants.

None of the current heads of these departments have been vocal in demanding to know why this building collapsed. In addition, while some details have been released, a full accounting of what data these agencies lost has not been prominently reported.

2.
BBC News reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it actually fell. The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of WTC 7 on the day of the attacks.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

How could the BBC have reported the collapse before it fell. Did the powers that be (those responsible) have their wires crossed. All those Drills didn't prepare them enough for the fast moving events of the day?

3.
"……….The speed of the collapse, the way it fell down vertically and symmetrically, the rapid onset, the way the center of the roof fell first, lateral ejections of debris observed, and the way the rubble fell mostly within the building's footprint.[34] The initial FEMA investigation team also found sulfur within the structural steel from WTC 7 which they could not explain: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event…."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The presence of sulfur, a residue of thermite burning steel and iron,found at the site, gives ample evidence of something wayward this way comes. My opponent cannot deny this evidence, and admits that thermite is a possibility. It cannot be ruled out and in fact is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM!!!

.4 Silverstein sued for a double terrorist attack, as I have stated earlier. There is no doubt that he knew about building 7 being "pulled" "demolished" before hand.

"….Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount of that coverage (~$7.1 billion) because, he contended, the two separate airplane strikes constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view. Because some of the policies contained certain limiting language and some did not, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of whether their policies were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation………."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I submit that there are many more questions that need to be answered before the public blindly accepts whatever they hear in the media. As has already been made clear by the past 7 years, think for yourself, make your own judgments and don't be afraid to ask why. Even if it means to be disappointed in the government that swore by the constitution to defend and protect the United States from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by scorpionclone 3 years ago
scorpionclone
just want to follow up with this article. So anyone who still beleives the cover-up is straight crazy!!
http://www.presstv.ir...
Posted by Revid 8 years ago
Revid
<<While it's true that steel may have been cut later...>>

Ok, so the steel was most likely cut during salvage operations.

Silverstein did not mean implode when he said "pull it"

WTC7 did not collapse in 7 seconds and the time it did collapse in is not suspicious.

Do any of your claims hold up to scrutiny?

Because you think it "looked like" a controlled demolition does not mean it was. The fact that there were no other characteristics of a CD; horizontal blasts, loud explosions, "tidy pile", or evidence of demolitions at the scene should a critical thinker like yourself to ditch this theory.
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
Watch out for the trollers. Classic
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
Who's the conspiracy theorist now, You just made zero snese, I can't follow your line of reasoning. It sounds like you know the guy who runs the what really happened website.

Then you post up an italian site, like they know what really happened. We can just agree to disagree, I showed you how shaped charges are used to cut still at an angle. While it's true that steel may have been cut later, it still doesn't rectify the fact that a controlled demolition looks eerily similar to the controlled demolition at building 7. Watch the clip and put your poms poms down cheerleader
Posted by Placebo 8 years ago
Placebo
How about this video showing a cleanup crew member clearly point out these beams and discuss how they are being cut.

I don't think you can explain this one at all.
Posted by Placebo 8 years ago
Placebo
Also you can't assume it was a shaped charge, because you have no evidence of it actually being a shaped charge. How can you say it is not even plausible that it was cut during a rescue mission? http://11-settembre.blogspot.com... This will show you the ease at which these things are cut.
Posted by Placebo 8 years ago
Placebo
Again, he posts from "www.whatreallyhappened.com" So now you say that shaped demolition charges were used to cut that beam and you then assume that since there was a cut beam at the twin towers, then there must be one at WTC7. Show me a picture of a melted clean cut beam at WTC7 then.

<<thermite and sulfur residue at the site, if towers 1 and 2 had evidence of this then it would also mean that building 7 had had similar residue.>>

Where? Show me, go collect some from wtc7 and have it analyzed in a lab.

You then show two videos of the so-called demo explosions. Let me ask you this. Why does the second video of the firefights cut off after the explosion? Where is the collapse? According to your 7 second collapse argument, the building should have collapsed after this explosion. Why would this firefighting holding the camera just decide to turn it off when the real fireworks begin? Anyone who holds a camera is bound to focus it on things that draw their attention, yet this video ends after one boom. And why one explosion, any video of controlled demolitions will tell you that there will be at least 4 explosions. TELL ME WHY? I'll tell you why, because the owner of www.whatreallyahppened.com decided that the video should be cut out to have the viewer believe it was a controlled demotion explosion, and since there was no collapse after it he felt it best to remove that part to fit his story.

You really shouldn't be posting videos that disprove your points, because clearly if those firefights filmed the collapse, which they certainly would have, then you would have proof. Alas you have nothing but guesses and that is not worthy of debate anymore since you only reply to what you want to reply to. Watch the first 5-10 mins of this, http://video.google.com... you will see the real sounds of demolitions and how the media added explosions into the first collapses.
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
Looks exactly the same to me. Get a grip on reality

<<Then tell me the bottom four posts are just comments and not an attempt to add arguments.>>

Was it an entire round 3 rebuttal? I think theres a difference between an entire round 3 rebuttal, where characters are limited for fairness, and additional comments in the comments section, where you can explain your postion as we are doing now.
Posted by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
<<Let's clarify something here, that beam is not WTC 7 it is from one of the twin towers. You say he baits and switches, yet you clearly imply that that beam was from WTC 7? Furthermore, the diagonal cuts around the "molten area" on that beam clearly show a cut,not a blasted demo effect.>>

I never said it was from wtc 7, that a lie. The point is there is thermite and sulfur residue at the site, if towers 1 and 2 had evidence of this then it would also mean that building 7 had had similar residue.Leading one to beleive that whoever was responsible for the collapse of tower 1 and 2 was also responsible for the collapse of 7. I'm sorry you fail to see it

<<Furthermore, the diagonal cuts around the "molten area" on that beam clearly show a cut,not a blasted demo effect.>>

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Maybe now you understand why the beams are cut diagonally, it's called a shaped charge and it's what demo pros use to knock support beams off thier foundations at an angle in order to shift the weight of the building completely off it's foundation.

""The job of a shaped charge is to cut steel H-beams. "The way we do this is by cutting the beam at an angle which through a series of beams cut at the same angle will tend to make the building shift over and 'walk'""

You have been enlightened. I accept your apology.....

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...
Sound of shaped charge

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Explosions heard by firefighters at building 7

they are identical

<<Buildings can fall without planes or explosives buddy>>
**falls on ground laughing**

WAS THAT A SERIOUS ARGUMENT, CUZ I WOULD LOVE TO DEBATE THAT TOPIC WITH YOU Can you show one instance where this has occurred

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Dont take my word for it, here's an expert
Posted by Revid 8 years ago
Revid
<<The comments section are for comments, not for posting the debate. This is clearly against the format. >>

Check out page 4 of our last debate - http://www.debate.org...

Then tell me the bottom four posts are just comments and not an attempt to add arguments.

Busted again Scorpion.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ClayTrainor 8 years ago
ClayTrainor
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vol 8 years ago
Vol
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Deviant71 8 years ago
Deviant71
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Revid 8 years ago
Revid
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dudesdowell 8 years ago
dudesdowell
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by timothykcct 8 years ago
timothykcct
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Placebo 8 years ago
Placebo
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by scr3amofr3ak 8 years ago
scr3amofr3ak
RevidscorpioncloneTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03