The Instigator
boredinclass
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Policy Debate is better over all than Pf Debate.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
BangBang-Coconut
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,825 times Debate No: 15121
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

boredinclass

Pro

Debating starts at round two, Who wants to debate?
BangBang-Coconut

Con

First I thank my opponent for iniating this debate;

I like he idea of debating this a lot, and think I can make a good case for Puff, or Public Forum Debate.
Here's to a fun round, I'm Looking forward to round two!
Debate Round No. 1
boredinclass

Pro

All right, Before I begin, this is going to be a friendly debate. So know that I don't really hate Pf, But I am going to seriously rag on it. But you can tell how serious I am fm my definition

As defined by Urban Dictionary, Public Forum Often referred to as PF by real debaters, this joke of a debate is for those who lack the intellect and intelligence to do Lincoln-Douglas (LD) or policy debate (CX). Public Forum is centered on current events, and is not focused on debate, rather speaking casually without actually learning anything. The team who wins is the team who can sound more like an idiot for the judge. Public Forum has no complex arguments like Topicality, Theory, Disads, K's, or CP's. The only three worse things are Congress, Parliament, and... Novice Public Forum.
"Dude, I just qualified for nationals in Public Forum!"
"Really?"
"Yeah, and I've never even debated before!"

"Wow, that Novice Public Forum round was intense!"
"..."

"I'm such a persuasive debater in Public Forum, I can show you why oil spills cause fish to die!"
- Actual Public Forum guy

Observation 1:
In Pf, all you do is complain about a problem. In policy, You actually have to set up a plan, with the ability to solve. We actually tackle a problem, and see real world solutions to solving said problem, We look at potential impacts, Some real (rape, dehumanization) and some not so real (Nuclear war). You also have diversity of arguments. If you don't like the plan, you can amend it by running A pic (plan inclusive counterplan).

Observation 2:
Policy improves your abilities to do other events. The first time I did PF, I went undefeated against last year's state runner-ups. And, the last time I did PF, I went 4-1 and only lost to this year's state champs. Plus, policy (at least in my state) is taking over Pf and LD. You can now run a framework in PF and alot of LD people spread. Plus, all policy people in my school break when they do other events- PF, LD, extemp.

Observation 3:
Pf has SOO many more crappy judges than policy does. I literally saw this one team's arguments go unanswered for the ENTIRE round, and they still lost. I don't think that there is anyone who likes civilian judges. I heard someone go up to the podium, and say that debators are not qualified to decide what is best. Then went off on an analytical that he made up. And he won. Civilian judge make the pf expierience not worth while.

Observation 4:
Policy helps you with real world policy making decisions. Policy makers actually have to consider all different types of impacts a certain action has on the world. And we do discuss benefits. plus, we have a wide verity of arguments that we can make. It is the most real world

Observation 5:
Policy has so many more arguments than PF. The most arguments I've seen in Pf was about nine arguments. Sure spreading is mostly considered stupid, but it helps alot of people in flowing, understanding inaudible arguments, and juggling many arguments. In Policy you have to deal with about 60 arguments per debate, and you have to juggle them all.

Observation 6:
In Pf you don't need warrants. I literally asked this one guy, why Robert Gates thinks that wikileaks is a threat. He said "I don't know" "Then why should we go with him, if he can't give a reason" "He doesn't need a reason, this is not a serious topic". One Kid said that he hadn't gone onto wikileaks, so I asked him how he knew anything about the topic, he just stood there and stared. He still lost, but the point is, without warrants, a debate is no more than just yelling at each other

Observation 7:
Cross-fire is worse than Cross-examination. In cross-x, it is your job to get as much information as you can from your opponent, this causes people to yell and ask quickly, in order to get the point across. Pf debaters treat it as an extension of their speech. They yell and don't really ask any questions, because they don't need to. The easiest way to win cross-fire is just to ask- What is your question?
BangBang-Coconut

Con

Hello to my opponent, and a big thank you for your constructive speech!
On that note; I want to make a profuse agreement that this debate will be friendly, so a note to the voters; please don't even mark on the "Conduct" voter.

So off that note and on to another, I'm going to lay out my plan for this debate.
1. I'm going to present the Con stance
2. I will refute the Pro stance

---
Con-

When we think of a serious debate; one regarding say the future of the american citizens or one between two presidential candidates, or any kind of word e can actually understand- do we think of two people having a sincere and intelligent discussion that the common public would be able to recognize(Public forum); or do we think of four High School students carting 20 50 pound boxes of evidence around in order to run Kritikes (this is not mis-spelled), Counter-plans, and to split the negative block (do you even understand what that means?)?

Unless you actually did Policy debate in high school (which accounts for approximately 2% of the human population) the answer is most likely the former of the two options.
This is then is very sad when we realize how much of a dis-proportionate amount of appreciation that Puff actually gets, it's a debate style that sincerely breeds people to have an actual debate when they are out of high school.

now I present you with several points furthering the Con stance

1. Only select people can actually understand policy debate-

In policy debate there is a practice known as "spreading" where one speaks extremely quickly so they can read a 60 page case in 8 minutes. Combine this with the fact that their speech is almost not understandable and you completely lose any chance of having a debate. I will expand on this more in a later speech, but this is the gist of the argument here.

2. Puff debate is designed so the general community can Understand, Compete, or Judge a round-

In fact in all actuality the debates that take place on this website are right about the same thing as Public Forum Debate. All people deserve the right to be able to understand a debate. Not only those who competed in it in High School or debate coaches.
Whereas on the flip side, my opponent's stance on the matter is highly elitist, if you don't like to waste time on formalities and if you're just a common person who likes to debate, then apparently you and idiot. However we know this isn't true, being in a High School forensics event doesn't make you make you perfect, or even special to the rest of society.

3. Policy only covers policy topics, Puff can cover anything-

In a Policy debate you can only policy issues; if you wanted to discuss morality, or philosophy, or value issues your up the creek with out a paddle in Policy, but not only that you can't just debate an issue and have your opinion heard. in policy you must also solve the issue, fund it, and set it into action. It falls away from being simply a debate and turns into an office job. Where as in Puff, you can debate policy topics, or you can debate morality, or Philosophy, you can debate anything! And it is just a debate; for those of use who just want to argue an issue (as we are doing now) they don't have to deal with all the formalities and proceeding that come with Policy

4. Policy cannot be better because that is a statement of not truth-

In all reality my opponent cannot win this round; he is trying to make a statement of opinion and push it as fact. If CX where sincerely "better" then alternative forms of debate would not exist, such as Public Forum, or Lincoln-Douglas, or IPDA, or Parliamentary debate, or Congress. There would only be policy.

with this I will cover my opponent's observations.

Pro-
First of all, My opponent provides no sources for his "quotes" something that he really should have learned if does Policy debate. We can't evaluate these; because we don't know that they're true. Instead I'm more apt to believe he just made these up. But not only that; he makes statements like "Wow, that novice Public Forum round was intense!" as though they where bad when he doesn't prove Puff is bad.

Obs 1-
First refer to my point how the debates on this site are essentially all Puff, second solving an issue isn't debate refer to my third point, finally Policy can't cover topics interesting to human nature; Love, Ideas, Philosophy- it only covers Policy.

Obs 2-
First, this point is entirely my opponent's own perspective and own view; he want you to believe that policy improves your over-all ability but he give you warrant in this point nor any kind of evidence to prove it is true. Disregard it.

Obs 3-
This point is completely tearing apart people who judge rounds who where not in debate in high school; if this applies to you, and you did not do debate in high school- then tell me through your vote; are you smart enough to tell whose won this round? Or are you (as my opponent would believe you are) a complete idiot?

Personally I think your an intelligent human being who knows the right decision to make (also you have a great sense of style and beautiful inner personality)

Obs 4-
My opponent does not prove this first of all, it is just a claim without a warrant, secondly if he can't prove that Puff doesn't teach you any real world skills (like say having a debate that some-one could actually understand) then this point loses any and all impact.

Obs 5-
I ask you to consider the time of the following things
a. constructive speeches- CX; 8 minutes, Puff; 4. Naturally more arguments will be made in twice the time.
b. spreading- Kudos the the person who made 9 arguments in 4 minutes without spreading, Policy debaters must spread in order to get only a few decent arguments out while Puff debaters can make several quality arguments in only 4 minutes
c. Quantity does not mean Quality- Sadly a technique used by Policy debaters is loading so many arguments on their opponents, that they don't have time to refute them. this doesn't make them a good debater, it just means they don't mind taking a cheap shot ti win
d. round times- Policy; 1 hour and 30 minutes, Puff; 45 minutes. There is more time to debate in Policy, where there some kind of equalizer to the times this attack would actually be something you could consider, sadly it is not.

Obs 6-
My opponent is once again making arguments without either a warrant (ironic isn't it?) or any kind of evidence to back up his claim. He assumes that throwing out personal examples that he very well could have made up himself is a viable arguments. It is not, it holds absolutely no substance.

Obs 7-
First of all, again; no evidence, no warrant.
Secondly in Cross-Fire actually allows for clash and back and forth debate, Cross-Examination only allows for some-one to get information they missed while their opponent was speaking a mile a minute. And the easiest way to waste some-ones Cross-examination period is to say "what" or "I don't understand you question" However this does not happen very often, because people understand that it is a cheap way to "win" and that it kills the debate.

Finally let me end with an observation of my own-
Con-
Obs 1:
This is a Public Forum debate, therefore my opponent even bothering to take part in it proves he recognizes that it has value and cannot say Policy is Better.

Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
boredinclass

Pro

Thanks for the timely rebuttal, I'll go over my points and then go to his points

Obs 1
-We do cover philosophy. They're called Kritiks. They say that the plan enforces a negative philosophy, and instead of doing the plan, we destroy said philosophy.

Obs 2
-It is generally known that Policy debaters are better because they
A. know how to weed out the stupid arguments and therefore can take out all parts of the arguments
B. We know how to handle under extreme pressure, ex. someone looking over our shoulder, asking a detail about our case
C. Like I said, Personal experiences, you don't have to believe me, but it is true

Obs 3
First of all, I'm not talking about the very smart, handsome and great judges that are probably going to vote on this debate ;). I'm talking about those judges that are not tabula rosa, The ones who vote pro every time no matter the issue. Not the Very smart judges who may not have debated in high school. The Judges they got at the last second who don't know anything, Unlike the people who are going to vote on this debate

Obs 4
- Nobody debates like policy, but extend my defense of my obs 1. That it helps you take out all arguments, plus what job do you have where you use pf debating skills_____. Policy jobs- Congress

Obs 5
b. There are three "quality" arguments made most of the time. Policy has multiple good arguments made at the same time
c. But with quantity, you have to use debating skills. to figure out which are quality arguments
d. we have lots of clash, if you don't, you will loose

Obs 6.
- to quote the GA state champion of PF, This is Pf, I don't need evidence. You don't have to believe that that the examples are true. But whether you do or don't, I saw them.

Obs 7.
-in cx people who do waste time, loose. In cross-fire, people who waste time get time. The point is that it is easier to abuse cross fire. Plus, we have a sexual innuendo.

Onto their case
Obs 1
- I'm not arguing that pf does not have value. besides if this site had policy form debate, I would jump on it so fast, but they don't.

Policy turns Pf. extend observation 2. Policy helps you debate pf and therefore, all their advantages go to policy

1. we were all novices at one time. We learned how to do it, it just requires commitment

2. Well if the general population cannot understand something, they need to learn, we need a smarter generation. everyone can better themselves. Elitism is inevitable, if people are unwilling to change

3. sure, why not waste time and money debating on something you have no plan of solving for? Why not? let's debate whether kittens are cute or not.

4. Not everyone wants to do policy. that's ok. We have to debate opinion.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

Jut as my opponent has done, I will cover the Pro, then the Con

Pro-
Obs 1
First of all that's not what a Kritike is, in a kritike you Critique the resolution, and while this is definately a deviation to the majority of what Policy is, you don't cover actual Philosophy. Never once in a policy round have I heard Thales, SOCRATES, PLATO, or ARISTOTLE quoted.

Obs 2
"Generally known" is not only a statement that shows my opponent's own arogant nature in terms of this debate, but this Observation does not cover the debate, but the debaters. And while this observation is wrong on so many levels in it's own way, I won't cover it. It's an off topic argument that does nothing to further this debate
A. I have never done Policy in my life, so this is to the voters, am I weeding out "stupid" arguments and taking out all parts of my opponent's arguments?
B. So do many people, once again this argument is arrogant and off topic.
C. Need I say anything more here? I could say I have "personal experiances" that the creater of Policy debate came to me and told me how much he regretted putting such a harm onto the world, and agrees that Puff is better. Personal experiances, you don't ha to believe it though.

Obs 3
My opponent is changing up his opinion here, I said you where all smart and beautiful first! but not only that, you have a beautiful inner person and make great cookies. Second, by a non-experianced judge that is exactly what he means. The point is Puff doesn't discriminate against those of us who never got the oppurtunity to debate in High school, Policy does.

Obs 4
a. Extend my refutations on obs 1
b. The following jobs are things that use skills gained in puff debate, Debate coach, Politician, Lawyer, Appologeticist. In fact a little point I'd like to throw out there Ted Turner, founder of CNN created Puff debate.

Obs 5
a. Apparantly there was an A that my opponent dropped
b. First of all my opponent agrees that these arguments are quality, but again I want to textend this point, Puffers get less time to debate; in fact the Puff debate topic changes every month, whereas the Policy only changes once a year. Policy debaters are not some kind of prodigy as my opponet would have you believe, they're just cocky and get more time to prepare.
http://www.nflonline.org...
c. Which they need an entire year to be able to actually do. extend me refutations on b. here
d. first no warrant, second no refutation, finally no impact

Obs 6
First, no warrant, no Imperical evidence, nothing.
I could quote the Policy national champion as saying "I think that fact I'm wearing a suit is proof enough" that doesn't make it true now does it?
Second how big of a school is this? 1A 2A 3A 4A or 5A? I once knew a girl who took third place in 2a LD her first year in debate after only being in debate for a few weeks.

Obs 7
No warrant, that cross-fire period is just as important as a CX period. and you can wast it just as easily.
second, a sexual innuendo? really? Let's keep this debate respectable

we see the we still have no reason to vote Policy, so I will not defend my own case

Con-

Obs 1
No, first of all that is exactly what you are arguing, second http://www.cross-x.com... has online Policy debate and they get much less trafic than DDO, the reason is because the common man likes to debate without having to worry about all of the formalities that accompy Policy.

One the policy turning Puff argument; I sincerely doubt that my opponent understands what a warrant is at this point. I guess that's just as sad sad side effect of Policy. All the sam, no warrant.

1. Only a select few can actually understand policy

That doesn't refute the claim or the argument I'm making, my opponent is just trying to push that every-one shoud learn and policy regardless of prefrence.

2. Puff debate is designed so the general community can Understand, Compete, or Judge a round-

first extend my refutations on 1, second elitism is not inevitable, we just need to realize that both Puff and Policy are just different forms of the same thing, debate. Neither is better than the other, and the same logic applies to the people doing the debate.

3. Policy only covers policy topics, Puff can cover anything-

I agree let's debate something fun, like whether Kittens are cute or not. I say they are!
Sadly my opponent has still yet to adress my case, instead he assumes that Policy is better, and guess he prefers not to get his hands dirty debating without 30 some odd tubs of evidence.

4. Policy cannot be better because that is a statement of not truth-

Honestly I'm beginning to be disapointed on how little my opponent is attacking my case, the fact is this argument stands in stark negation of the entirity of my opponent's previous argumentation. We are not debateing opinions, but which is Better.

for all of these reasons I urge a Con Vote
Debate Round No. 3
boredinclass

Pro

Pro, then con

But first, I'd like to point out that he has not used a warrant either. So this debate is not one with warrants. Our warrants are our personal experiences

Obs 1- How can you tell me what a k is, you have never run one. Look at http://www.debatecoaches.org... The K's are attacks on the case.

Obs 2- Why is arrogance bad, Plus, we can best evaluate a debate, by the debaters it produces. If they are better at other events, is that not proof for the superiority of the debate style?
a. But you are an experienced PF debater debating a pf style debate.
b. How is it off topic, Extend the top
c. My experiences are more likely. The man who created policy is dead and ghosts don't exist.

Obs 3- So those of you who have done PF honestly like the biased judges who only vote pro, don't flow, and basically jut sit there? Besides, you have a great inner and outer personality, and I love everything you make.

Obs 4- Policy creates debate coaches, because extend how policy makes better debaters, politicians, because you learn how policy is enacted, and how does PF make you a better lawyer

Obs 5-
a. the A only said that we have more time, it wasn't really an argument
b. Depth than breadth, We cover a topic so much, we learn a lot about it. but with pf, you only learn as much as you need to

Obs 6-
3a, their names are Skylar smission and Micheal Ingram, they went to carrollton with me

Obs 7-
In policy, cx is a time to clarify and sometimes double-bind, Cf is only for extending your speech

Oh and I can't access Cx from the school network. But thanks man that's cool

Extend all con case attacks which he never answered and vote pro
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for his rebuttle, ans since this will be my final speech, I will simply cover my opponent's last speech following it down the wording, then I will surmise with a brief closing on why I've won.

so first my opponent claims I have no warrants either, I can attest to you and assure you this is untrue. but even if it where this attack is abusive because he makes it as a general claim and doesn't tell me where I have no warrants. If this where a debate of opinions then there could be no clear winner. However we all understand that via context of the Pro's constructive, this is a debate over fact and actuality.

Obs 1- First, it's nice that you've assumed I've never run a K, they exist outside of policy mind you. Second I need not to have run a Kritike to understand what one is. just in the same way that I need not have ever been in a bicycle race to know what one is, or the mechanics thereof. Finally, to all of the voters, I ask you to follow the link my opponent provided, Tell me if in any of the links on the page you go to talk about philosophy.

Obs 2- Arrogance is bad because it makes an intellectually stimulating debate impossible. You will be too attached to your stance to learn anything from the debate, and it will make an actual debate imposible. and second I'm going to take a moment to research who last years' national champion in Domestic Extem was... It was Chesterton high school's Tyler Fabbri, http://speechgeek.com... and lo and behold, he does Puff debate.
a. No, actually I'm not. I've done Puff right around 4 times in my entire life. I just happen to enjoy it an see it's value.
b. Extend my link on Tyler Fabbri.
c. This point was completely satirical; I've made my point here.

Obs 3- Those kind of judges are only existant in Policy. They're called Stock Issues Judges, also they don't exist in Puff, only kind, beautiful, incredibly talented Judges exist in Puff

Obs 4- I plan on being a debate coach for a living, I did LD. Also extend my point on Ted Turner

Obs 5-
a. It is an argument, it point that since Policy debaters have more time to debate a round, they will naturally be able to run more arguments.
b.It would seem my opponent dropped my argument here, and instead claims they simply get to learn a topic backwards and forwards. Point being there are good and bad to both sides. Puff you debate more topics and learn more about the world, Policy you debate one topic again and again and again and learn it till you're sick of it.

Obs 6-
3a, link? evidence? proof? non exist, we must assume he made this up. This arguemnt is the equivalent of gossip

Obs7- Not true, every time I've ever had a cross-fire it was an incredibly enlightening period. And again extend my second round point; this is not a canon practice, it's recognized as incredibly rude.

Since I actually covered all the pro attacks (Since I adapted my style to my opponent's last speeches each round). My opponent has no attacks extended.

Now my opponent didn't cover my points in their final speech, So since they dropped all of my points I'll just extend everything on the Con case as voters.

So finally my closing arguments, If I haven't convinced you that Policy is not better than Public forum by now, then if for no other reason vote Con for this; neither can every be better than the other because it's an opinion; and each is entitled to their own opinion.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Yeah no rush brotha. Are you cool with being AFF?
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Sounds good! If you can wait until next monday before you challenge me though :3
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Hey instead of debating the other stuff I wanted to debate you on, why not lets just do a video debate on the current LD topic. I've been wanting to do one for a while now. Send me the challenge, And let's do it! I'm excited.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Augh! Vote-bombed :P

Xenith967's RFD had nothing to do with the debate's content!
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
All the same sounds good :D
Send me a private message ad we can flesh out the details!
Posted by boredinclass 3 years ago
boredinclass
Nah, i've never done LD, I'm sayin a video debate would be sweet
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@boredinclass So you would be up for a video LD debate?
Awesome! give me a resolution :D
Posted by boredinclass 3 years ago
boredinclass
@hello-orange
That would be epic.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@JoshuaxLawyer
Hey I just thought of something, if you have a webcam would you like to do an LD debate via video?
we could make up our own topic (I'm a little out of the loop on what the current topic is anyway) Frame the debate and have a really fun LD round right here on DDO!
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@nails Yeah, I'll admit that was just a random statistic. I manily meant it to show how few people actually do Policy as opposed to the general population. XD
and hey, I did LD in high school too! I'm not trying to advocate that Puff is the most supreme debate; just that Policy is not better.

@joshuaXlawyer Just because you do LD doesn't mean other forms of debate are bad right? That's like saying that because you like pepsi coke isn't even worth considering to have any value. Like I just said to nails I did LD in high school, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the value in Puff, or Policy. Both are useful in their own ways
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 3 years ago
CiRrK
boredinclassBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This kills me to vote Con, but for this debate neither of you proved your side true. So at that point, I default Neg because I think the wording of the resolution gives burden to aff.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 3 years ago
Brenavia
boredinclassBangBang-CoconutTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: just alot more win for pro
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
boredinclassBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, on both accounts. S/G goes to orange, Arguments were alot stronger especially in concluding speech. Good job guys overall.
Vote Placed by Xenith967 3 years ago
Xenith967
boredinclassBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: even though i enjoy pf debating about different topics it takes a truly skilled and refined mind to debate in policy. since policy debates take all year the competitors often get better and better as the year progresses and to compete at such difficulty should be regarded with the highest respect.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
boredinclassBangBang-CoconutTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Would have been interesting if both had to debate in the respective styles, Pro however could not maintain the BoP and Con did maintain and defend an interesting refutation.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 3 years ago
Rockylightning
boredinclassBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Various grammar errors.