The Instigator
AngilCorey
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
PreacherFred
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

One cannot be Pro-life and a Democrat for it is that party that promotes the Pro-Choice agenda.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/11/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,377 times Debate No: 1693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (15)

 

AngilCorey

Pro

With all respect, one cannot be Pro-Life and Democrat for it like trying to serve two masters. In this case, the master of politics more than overpowers the master of humanity. For each time one casts their vote for a Democrat, they too cast their vote for a platform that promotes, legislates and condones abortion. In the end, every abortion that is performed and will be performed tomorrow is only done so due to each and every vote for a Democrat in Legislature, for President or appointment of left leaning judges who are mostly appointed by agenda driven Democrats.

What policies of the Democrat platform could possible out weigh the life of even one child? If, a person finds that there is a cause more important than the life of a child, can that person call themselves Pro-Life or anti abortion? Does not their choice and action make a much more accurate statement of their allegiance? In the end, regardless of declared statement of Pro-Life leanings, the blood of legalized abortion still stains the hands of any and all who vote Democrat - for they have chose to terminate life for a non-life threatening cause - that of their real master - that of their political servitude - the Democratic Party.
PreacherFred

Con

"One cannot be Pro-life and a Democrat" is easily debunked as a false statement. "...for it is that party that promotes the Pro-Choice agenda" may have been an absolute truth in the past, but I intend to prove that current trends in the Democratic Party are to back away from such a stance.

My opponent contends that every vote for a democrat is a vote for abortion. Conversely, then, every vote for a republican is a vote for pro-life. Both the national Democratic Party and the Democrats for Life of America seek to make abortion rare. The national Democratic Party's stated intention is to protect legal access to abortion, while simultaneously working to reduce the number by supporting social programs. While Democrats for Life of America also supports the implementation of such programs, in particular the Pregnant Women Support Act, they also strongly advocate for pro-life Democrats who support restricting access to abortion. This divergence highlights a crucial difference between the pro-choice and the pro-life viewpoints: while both groups advocate for reducing the number of abortions through social supports, pro-life groups also place emphasis on legally restricting access to abortion. Pro-choice groups maintain that abortion must remain safe, affordable, and legal. The party, under the leadership of Howard Dean, has softened their hard line stance in recent years, however, and has begun to support pro-life Democrats.[1]Any vote for a candidate who is a member of the Democrats for Life of America is not a vote for abortion. Therefore, not every vote for a democrat is necessarily a vote for abortion. In 2000, the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition tried to launch a floor fight at the Republican National Convention, and came within three votes of doing so. Planned Parenthood had a G.O.P. outreach contingent at that same convention, hoping to help the mayhem along.

[1]http://www.democratsforlife.org...
Debate Round No. 1
AngilCorey

Pro

Although Democrats for Life sounds like a great group and a good group of life supporters, the fact remains that the mainstream candidates running for election and holding office are pro-choice democrats. Unless, as a pro-life individual you refuse to vote for a pro-choice candidate, your political affiliation is perpetuating the continuation of abortion as a legal option to pregnancy. Abortion as an option to pregnancy is not pro-life.

If the issues that sway your vote for a pro-choice Democrat are regarding the economy, education, employment, and the like are heavier on your heart than the cause of Life, then in effect you are making the same decision, for the same reasons, and same result as a woman who chooses to abort due to income, her education, her job and the like. In this, one cannot be pro-life if they are assisting with the continuation of abortion on demand.

To say that you don't believe in abortion and yet place people in office who promote, support and advance the cause of abortion is a dash of hypocrisy with a cup full of self denial of the consequences of choice.

True enough, there are pro-choice Republicans. And, to date, they hold no real power within the party and would be hard pressed to garner any real power. The party platform and dedication to human life and the respect of said life will always carry more weight than a blip in our party line.

Many Republicans, such as myself, believe that abortion should never be an alternative to pregnancy - abortion on demand. Many of us believe that only medically necessitated abortion should be performed. This would include and pretty much be limited to after rape care, life and death choice, and cases of the most extreme such as a dead/dying pre born child. I would not and could not ever vote for a Pro-Choice candidate for any office, knowing that in the end, my vote may lead to the death of a pre-born child. Hence, my stance on the issue is consistent with my action - life first and foremost.

For one to claim life yet vote for and install in positions of power those who will advance, advocate and support abortion on demand is nothing short of lying to one's self - that person has enabled abortion and therefore is ProChoie.
PreacherFred

Con

The fact that Democrats for Life exists proves 50% of your argument that "one cannot be a democrat and pro-life at the same time" to be false.

If "the fact remains that the mainstream candidates running for election and holding office are pro-choice democrats" is true, how can the following be explained? In December 02, 2004, Pro-life Democrat Joe Manchin won the governor's race in West Virginia despite the fact that George Bush carried the state. Due to the leadership of Minority Leader Pat Murphy in recruiting pro-life Democrats to run in pro-life districts, the Iowa senate was tied and the Iowa house has moved closer to a Democratic majority. In Minnesota, a pro-life Democratic candidate won in an "unelectable" seat that had been deemed Republican. In Maryland, a pro-life Democrat was told that the state party would not support him because he was pro-life. He ran anyway and won. Former Vermont Governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, when running for DNC chairman, says: "We ought not turn our back on pro-life people." Simon Rosenberg, another DNC chairman candidate who was president of the centrist New Democratic Network, was more equivocal, claiming that the majority of Democrats and Americans are pro-choice. Being pro-life has been political death for any Democrat with national aspirations. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Richard Gephardt all abandoned varying pro-life tendencies when they decided to run for president. In a Meet the Press interview, Senator Joe Biden stated: "I still am opposed to public funding for abortion. It goes to the question of whether or not you're going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to promote."

Perhaps, it is "True enough, there are pro-choice Republicans. And, to date, they hold no real power within the party" because, like the majority of democrats and Americans, the majority of republicans are pro-life. However, William J Brennan was named to the U.S. Supreme Court through a recess appointment by Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, shortly before the 1956 presidential election. In 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated Potter Stewart to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Harold Hitz Burton In 1969, President Richard M. Nixon nominated Warren Burger to the Chief Justice position. Harry Blackmun and Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. were nominated for the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon on 4 April 1970, and were confirmed by the United States Senate later the same year.

In 1939, Justice Louis D. Brandeis resigned from the Supreme Court, and Roosevelt nominated William O. Douglas as his replacement. On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court following the retirement of Justice Tom C. Clark.

Of those Supreme Court Justices who supported Roe vs. Wade, five (5) were republican nominees and only two (2) were democratic nominees. The two dissenting justices were one republican and one democrat.

The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, (a republican nominee) asserted that the "right of privacy" is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. It was the decision of the Supreme Court, with a majority of republican nominees, (not the President or Congress or the Senate) in the case of Roe vs. Wade, that abortion was deemed to be legal in the United States.

After 40 years of Democratic rule, the Republican majority in the Congress during most of Clinton's term in office appeared at the time to be a welcome sight. But because the presidency eluded them, the Republicans seemed to have an excuse for not challenging Roe vs. Wade, even though it is the legislative branch that passes all legislation — not the executive branch. And besides, Clinton made a good scapegoat. Then, if only for a brief moment, it appeared finally to be official — there was an absolute Republican majority in the House, a 50-50 split in the Senate with a Republican vice president to break ties, and a Republican president in the White House. But when Jim Jeffords, the Republican senator from Vermont, switched from being a Republican to being an Independent on May 24, 2001, the Republican majority fizzled, giving the GOP another excuse.

But then, no more excuses. The 108th Congress, took office and was solidly Republican. But since the Republicans have gained control of the Congress, the federal budget (over $2 trillion) and the federal deficit (over $500 billion) are the highest ever, the national debt is over $7 trillion (and increasing an average of $2 billion per day), hundreds of Americans have died on foreign soil, and Americans have even less liberty now than they had before. This time, however, the Republicans have no excuses. The lame excuse that they are not responsible because they didn't control the entire government will not work anymore. And the even lamer excuse that the defection of Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords so early in Bush's presidency didn't give the Republican majority enough time to do anything won't work either.

The Republicans have now had total control — an absolute Republican majority — for more than a year. And what did they do during this time? The usual — nothing. No egregious legislation was repealed. No challenge to Roe vs. Wade was forthcoming. The welfare state was not rolled back an inch. No federal programs or departments were eliminated. No budgets were cut. In fact, legislation got worse (the USA PATRIOT Act), the welfare state was strengthened (a new prescription drug plan), and a new federal department was created (Homeland Security). So now that the initial euphoria over an absolute Republican majority has subsided and the Republicans had been in charge for over a year, the Republican record can be soberly addressed.

There is only one way to describe the record of the Republican majority during its first year: a dismal failure. To students of political history, however, this was not only no surprise, it was to be expected and, in fact, predictable on the basis of the actions of the Republican Party in the 20th century, whether they held the presidency, the House, the Senate, or any combination of the three, including an absolute majority. Because the history of the Republican Party is one of compromise after compromise and sellout after sellout, there are a number of things that a Republican majority has not meant, and in fact, will never mean. Blatantly, while the republican platform may contain provisions supporting pro-life, it was a majority of republican appointees who made abortion legal in the United States!
Debate Round No. 2
AngilCorey

Pro

Would one of the things that the Republican congress didn't do is is garner the PBA ban? A ban that was vetoed several times by then President, Tricky Willie? Would another do nothing action of the Republicans be the ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research? How about the fight to maintain parental involvement in regards to medical care of our children - via parental notification and consent laws that the Democrat party has fought to sever?

In a nutshell, we are talking about personal conviction here - not party voting record. We are talking how a person, any person, can support a party that has continued to support and further the agenda of abortion rights. A party that garners support of world wide of Planned Parenthood and their pro abortion agenda. A party that wants government funding of NOT medically necessitated abortion, but abortion upon demand. A party that fought to get federal employees abortion benefits - partly paid for in tax dollars. As a person who claims to be Pro-Life, the decisions to maintain these policies by voting for these individuals, who although a small majority is showing signs of change towards Pro Life belief, continue to be the advocates of Choice in America.

One can say that they personally do not believe in abortion and would never have an abortion. However, if they continue to vote for people who are Pro-Choice, what stand are they ultimately taking? It is through their voice that abortion is advocated and it's agenda served. It is the individual who would claim to be Pro Life in a crowd and yet cast a ballot for abortion behind the screen. If you personally have voted for a Pro Choice candidate, then in effect you have chosen other issues as more important than life - thus it is impossible if not delusional to claim to be Pro-Life. It would be like a girl stating she is Pro life and yet when faced with the decision, choosing abortion for the same reasons you chose that candidate despite their choice belief.

No one can serve two masters - and as a party, democrats are Pro Choice. The line is, if not clearly drawn, there as clear as a state border - it is discernible. When you elect pro choice individuals it is through their office that abortion continues, restrictions are voted against, limitations removed, and abortion rights expanded and continued as a legal option. So regardless of what we espouse to others, our actions truly show our stand. Denying our involvement doesn't cover that involvement. A master has been chosen in these cases - as with those who chose the Roman way over Christ's via action - even while claiming their Jewishness or Christianity - they served Rome by action and vice - as the Pro Life Democrat serves the Pro Choice agenda by the same.

Thanks for the exchange - I have enjoyed your POV, although I see no weight in it and still firmly hold my belief that by supporting/electing/appointing those who are Pro Choice one by default cannot and is not Pro Life.
PreacherFred

Con

The following information will negate the premise that one cannot be pro-life and a democrat as well as disprove that not every democrat promotes the pro-choice agenda:

Democrats for Life of America 95-10 Initiative
The 95-10 Initiative is a comprehensive package of federal legislation and policy proposals that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years.

While both Democrats and Republicans talk about reducing the number of abortions, Democrats for Life of America offers real solutions to make this goal a reality.

With bold new ideas, sound research and policy arguments, the 95-10 Initiative contains proven policy suggestions to dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America.

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH)—"This legislative initiative will communicate to pregnant women that the community is behind you to carry the baby to term. I am proud that the Democratic Party is supportive of this and that Democratic members are supportive."

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI)—"The '95-10 Initiative' is an aggressive and comprehensive plan to bring down the rate of abortions in this country. We cannot wait for the opportunity to ban abortions before we act. By instituting these programs we can reach out to young parents to offer the information and assistance they need to make the right decision of keeping a life and then help them foster that life by teaching parenting skills and providing adequate healthcare."

Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN)—"The '95-10 Initiative' is a clear indication that the Pro-Life Democrats in the House of Representatives, in conjunction with the Democrats for Life of America, are firmly committed to ending the practice of abortion in America. By looking into the different reasons that women choose abortions, rather than just politicizing the issue, we have been able to come up with a comprehensive and commonsense initiative that will empower women and encourage them to choose life. I strongly urge my Republican colleagues in the House to join the Pro-Life Democrats in this mission so that we can reduce the number of abortions in American by 95% in the next ten years."

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)—"This measure makes huge advances in our support of pregnant women, children and, indeed, of all our families, and I am proud to support it."

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)—"Democrats for Life of America share the same goal as most Americans – to reduce the instance of abortion in America. The plan outlined today is a good first step to successfully reduce the rate of abortion by offering alternatives that promote family, promote adoption, and provide education and support for new mothers. I commend Democrats for Life of America for their efforts to bring this issue to the forefront of the agenda and for putting the care and support for newborns and new mothers above all else."

Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN)—"As a pro-life Democrat myself I believe that Democrats for Life is on the right track. Lots of Democrats I know are committed to reducing abortions and protecting the most vulnerable in our society. I believe the "95-10" program is something everyone, regardless of party affiliation, ought to be supporting."

Congressman Jerry Costello (D-IL)—""If there is general agreement on anything regarding abortion, it is that we all want to reduce the number of abortions. Toward that end, we are sending an important message today, that by working together and using this legislation as a guide we can take steps to drastically reduce the number of abortions in the United States. I urge all of our colleagues to embrace this effort."

Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN)—"Today I join my colleagues in introducing a measure designed to reduce by 95% in 10 years the number of abortions performed in the U.S. This comprehensive measure crosses political and ideological lines to address the root causes and conditions that lead a woman to seek an abortion rather than carry her unborn child to term. It addresses the problem of abortion with kindness and compassion, with a helping hand rather than a heavy hand. I invite my pro-choice colleagues in both parties as well to carefully scrutinize our proposals. There should be little here that they find objectionable and much that they can join us in embracing."

Dan McConchie, Americans United for Life—"AUL has already seen success with these types of initiatives in states around the country. We look forward to working with state chapters of DFLA to see that 95-10 is implemented at the state level."

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. Assistant National Director of LEARN (Life education and resource network)—"95-10 will launch a new era for women and children in care and education. It fills the obvious voids in the current system and offers sound solutions for the future."

Kurt Entsminger, President, CareNet—"The bad news is that our nation is a long way from making abortion "rare". The good news is that there are numerous initiatives that leaders on both sides of the aisle can support to achieve to achieve that goal. We applaud Democrats for Life for championing an agenda that embraces the women facing an unplanned pregnancy and offers her support and critical information about positive alternatives to abortion. Pregnancy resource centers are at the forefront of these efforts, and are the key players to help reach the goal of making abortion "rare "".

Tom Atwood, President and CEO, National Council on Adoption—"The National Council For Adoption supports pro-adoption measures proposed in the 95-10 Initiative. As provided for in this legislation, the time has come to make adoption tax credits permanent and to ensure that women with unplanned pregnancies receive timely counseling and accurate information about the positive option of adoption."

Dr. Randy Brinson, Redeem the Vote—(who also attended the press conference at the Democratic National Committee in Washington, DC.) "The importance of 95-10 becoming law cannot be overstated. While many in the pro life community debate the ramifications of Roe v Wade, there is too little done to obtain a consensus on limiting and reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortion or create a safety net for women contemplating ending their pregnancy. Kristen Day and the Democrats for Life should be commended for their research and dedication to supporting proven techniques and programs that protect women and their unborn babies. This is a bill that deserves bipartisan support and passage"

State Representative Mark Miloscia (D-WA)—"As a matter of faith, I have always stood to protect those that are least able to do so themselves, the lives of the unborn. I believe wholeheartedly in the goals of the 95-10 initiative. Across America, Democrats are waking up and beginning to understand how the unborn also are human life that is to be cherished. It is a movement that is catching on and I plan on introducing legislation here in Washington modeling 95-10."

A vote for any of these democrats cited above would not be a vote for abortion, but the opposite. Therefore, I believe I have supplied sufficient proof to negate the premise upon which this debate is based.

Personally, I am a democrat and I am definitely against abortion. I suggest that our focus should be in supporting and helping anyone who is running for political office who is pro-life to get elected rather than making a blanket acceptance of one party over the other.

Thank you for a good debate. I respect your position but believe that the above is a more efective method of achieving our goal.
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by magpie 7 years ago
magpie
A pro life democrat is akin to a pro Jew Nazi. The 'flag' of the Democrat party (Platform) contains a Pro Choice plank. A true pro life candidate could not (would not) run with that banner, when there is a clear alternative. How does Keeping abortion "safe and legal" differ from keeping rape "safe and legal"?
Posted by TrueBass 7 years ago
TrueBass
Okay "AngilCorey." It's not a matter of "inconvenience" that propels a woman to have an abortion. It's a matter of best interests. Do you realize what it's like to be a teenage mother? It is extremely unlikely that the guy will stay with you throughout the whole thing. If he leaves, you have a small chance of being able to stay in school. Nowadays, if you don't have a high school diploma, you'll get nowhere. Maybe, if you're lucky, you have a mother/father/some other relative that doesn't have to work and is willing to take care of your child. However, voluntary unemployment is so unlikely these days, that I find that scenario hard to believe. If the person was fired, they will likely be spending their days looking for some way to support themselves. The woman will often times be rejected by her family anyway.

I would just like to add that I don't support abortion. I'm just simply not against it.

I'm slightly embarrassed by the weakness of this argument, but I have a different debate - that i will be graded on, so on that is therefore a higher priority - to attend to.
Posted by AngilCorey 7 years ago
AngilCorey
Here is the thing. I am not against a medical choice of abortion for a true medical condition or situation. What I am against is the outright taking of life for no other reason than birthcontrol. I am for a woman's right to chose to have sex, chose to not have sex, who she has sex with, when she has sex and what position she has sex in. However, owning a uterous does not give women the right to chose who lives and who dies simply because a life is inconvienant and still 4 inches from life. There is a time and a place for everything under the sun, including abortion. However, the abuse of this proceedure is what has tainted a proceedure meant to be performed for truly tragic and severe circumstances like to save a woman's life, as a treatment for rape and in the case of severe and fatal deformaties and conditions not beholding to life for the unborn. It is not a game and should not be treated as such. Nor should it be a means for any 'DOCTOR' <term used losely> to profit from running a mill based on death.
Posted by TrueBass 7 years ago
TrueBass
I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, but I feel like I should voice my opinion.

I'm getting really tired of the whole Pro-Life thing.

Abortion is a woman's choice.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
"and Im still waiting to hear of the old man thinks pot smokers should be jailed"

"he doesnt seem to want to answer"

"I couldnt give a crap

(a) what the old man thinks"

Contradictory statements which is why I will not comment on Solarman's comments any longer
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I couldnt give a crap

(a) what the old man thinks

or

(b) whether dope is legal or not

I will smoke whatever the hell I want and the guvmint aint gonna stop me or anyone else from doing so- its a PLANT

are you going to stop the sun and water too?

just like Silver- gonna ban a semi-precious metal and batteries?

I dont think so

same with alcohol- gonna ban yeast and sugar?

I just find it funny when people throw around Nazi or Marxist propaganda, dont even realize they are doing it, and then get all upset when you call them on it

e.g.

!! Everyone already knows you are the three-letter version of a donkey. !!

- a spoiled brat in the grocery store who won't stop his tantrum until Mom gives in and buys him a candy bar. !!

ha ha ha ha ha

Again I quote Churchill, one of the great heroes of the 20th century

If youre 20 and not liberal, you have no heart

If youre 40 and not conservative, you have no brain.

SOLARMAN
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I actually AGREE with you about casual weed use. Typo left out the important part of that sentence.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Annihilated? Solarman, you only serve to bolster my world view. If you ever hope to see weed legalized, you might want to join my world view as well. Because as much as it pains me to admit it, sigh, I actually with you about casual marijuana use. Following the view that you do only serves to set yourself back. Aren't you tired of shooting yourself in the foot?
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
"...and Im still waiting to hear of the old man thinks pot smokers should be jailed."

Until such time as your party can muster enough votes to repeal the present laws, we are bound by them. What I think is of no consequence nor have I stated what I think.

Stop assuming things. Everyone already knows you are the three-letter version of a donkey.

I'd rather be an old man (like a Paul Mason wine) than act like the spoiled brat in the grocery store who won't stop his tantrum until Mom gives in and buys him a candy bar.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Prepare to have your liberal world view ANNIHILIATED

cheers

SOLARMAN
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by maya.earl 6 years ago
maya.earl
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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 magpie 7 years ago
magpie
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 7 years ago
PreacherFred
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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 JimmyKerr 9 years ago
JimmyKerr
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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 GrimParrot 9 years ago
GrimParrot
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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 kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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 Teafood 9 years ago
Teafood
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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 Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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 mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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 EricW1001 9 years ago
EricW1001
AngilCoreyPreacherFredTied
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