The Instigator
guesswho
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Korashk
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Polygamy should be legalized in the West

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 7/13/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,804 times Debate No: 12539
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (8)

 

guesswho

Pro

Definition: Polygamy is form of marriage in which a man is simultaneously married to more than one woman.

I firmly believe in that polygamy should be legalized in the West for the following reasons:

1. Numerical superiority of females over males:

By law of nature, males and females are born in equal proportions, meaning that for every male there is in this world, there should also be a female. However, due the fact that females are naturally more resistant against disease than males, the population of females exceed that of males. Just look at the life expectancy ratio anywhere in the world and you will see that females on average out live males by 5 years.

If we also take into consideration all the deaths due to war, due to accidents, due to physical activity, due to suicides in which the majority of victims are males, we see that with the passing of time, the female population greatly outnumbers the male population. According to last year's global population survey:
In Russia alone, there are 10 million more females than males
In USA alone, there are 4 million more females than males
In France alone, there are 2 million more females than males
Even on the small island of Japan, there are 4 million more females than males

The right to marriage is a fundamental right of all human beings. It is just as significant a right as our right to freedom or our right to security. The bottom line is: if Polygamy isn't legalized, all these extra females will without doubt be denied of this fundamental right. Here is the justice in that?

Just to put things into perspective, during World War 2, so many German soldiers died that by the end of World War 2, the women population of Germany complained to the German Government that they are unable to find husbands. In an attempt to solve the problem, the government actually tried to come up with a formula for polygamy, but pressure from the church shut it down.

2. Males are naturally polygamous:

There is a reason why so many males in the West are cheating. It is scientifically proven that males need and want sex more than females. One experiment shows that males think about sex far more than females in the same amount of time. Any male reading this probably agrees that thoughts of sex can spontaneous occur during the day multiple times. If man are allowed to have more than one wife, they can satisfy their needs without having to resort to immoral acts such as adultery.

3. Polygamy in the middle east:

Islam is a religion that allows for the practice of polygamy so it is not surprising to see it occur in the middle east where many Islamic states exist. There, polygamy is very common, but more importantly, a very successful practice. The key to this success is the boundaries that Islam has placed around polygamy to make it a sustainable and fair practice. For example, to prevent disputes, a man must have the consent of his existing wife before marrying someone else. I believe that is the real solution: not to ban polygamy but to place limits around it like how we would place limits around driving or gun rights.

4. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of mankind:

It is a fact that polygamy has been around for as long as humans existed. During the hunting and gathering age, the primary job was for men to hunt. Due to frequent deaths, as hunting was an extremely dangerous activity, a man usually had multiple wives so all women were accounted for in a tribe. It was also done to keep the population growing by more pregnancies. In civilized societies, polygamy is also practiced on a huge scale. Back in Chinese culture, a man had numerous wives - a main wife and a few other wives that they call "small" wives. It does not mean that they are less, but rather that they are not the main wife.

5. Religion does not really forbid polygamy:

If you ask any Christian today if they are against polygamy, many of them will say yes because the church is against it. However what they don't realize is that the bible not once said anything against polygamy. Abraham and Moses just like Muhammad all had multiple wives when they were alive! It was only until later on that high ranked churchman decided to ban polygamy, which is the reason why we see it as something negative in the West today. They had no grounds to do so! But it's not surprising considering how much the church has deviated from the truth and how much they have altered the bible. The point is, look into any history book or law textbook, and you will not find any evidence suggesting the practice of polygamy as inferior to the practice of monogamy. It has just turned out to be that way in the West due to church influence.

That is basically my argument for now, thanks.
Korashk

Con

.
.
.
I thank my opponent for creating this debate and apologize for the late response. I've been very busy.

~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~

///1. Numerical superiority of females over males:...The right to marriage is a fundamental right of all human beings. It is just as significant a right as our right to freedom or our right to security. The bottom line is: if Polygamy isn't legalized, all these extra females will without doubt be denied of this fundamental right. Here is the justice in that?///
[Here my opponent misinterprets the meaning of the right to marry. It does not mean that every individual who wants to get married can not be denied the outcome of marriage. It means that everyone should have the opportunity to pursue marriage. To get married there must currently be two consenting parties. To summarize: My rights are not being violated if I want to get married but nobody wants to marry me.]
~

///2. Males are naturally polygamous:///
[I don't see how this contention applies to the topic at hand. Wanting sex has nothing to do with marriage as marriage is a legal process a couple undergoes to gain civil rights. Let's lagalize polygamy because men want sex is a non-sequiter.]
~

///3. Polygamy in the middle east:///
[My opponent did not source any information about how polygamy is successful in the Middle-East. I will leave this point unaddressed until he does so.]
~

///4. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of mankind:///
[Blatant appeal to tradition coupled with a lot of unsourced information.]
~

///5. Religion does not really forbid polygamy:...It has just turned out to be that way in the West due to church influence.///
[Who cares? This is a debate about matters of law and in the West religious preference as nothing to do with the law. Also, church influence is not the deciding factor with polygamy.]
~

I look forward to my opponent's defence.
Debate Round No. 1
guesswho

Pro

I thank Korashk for taking part in this debate.

1. Numerical superiority of females over males:
Con has stated that I have misinterpreted the meaning of "Right to Marriage" and then goes on to explain why. He explains that "Right to Marriage" does not mean a person is guaranteed a marriage if he/she demands one. Rather, it means that everyone "should have the opportunity to pursue marriage" and that there must be two consenting parties for marriage to occur. In brief, one person's "Right to Marriage" is not being violated if nobody wants to marry them.

Unfortunately, Con seems to be missing the point to my first argument.

----------- Defense -------------

Definition of "Right to Marriage" according to United Nations:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
http://www.un.org...

The reason for my first argument is to prove that in many major countries today, the female population exceeds the male population by MILLIONS, meaning that there will always be millions of women out there who are forced to live without a partner if Polygamy isn't legalized. By pointing out this fact, I am proving that "the right to marry" simply does not exist for these extra females. It is not a matter of nobody wanting to marry them, rather, it is a matter of nobody LEFT to marry them. Although in theory, they all still have the "Right to Marriage" in the sense that they can still marry if there is someone available, in reality, because there is no one avaliable, they therefore haven't this Right. Think about it this way, how could 100 women all realistically have the right to marry when only 80 men exist? If 80 out of the 100 women find husbands, the 20 women who are left are by reason, denied of this Right. That is unfair.

2. Males are naturally polygamous:
Con believes that my second argument is not relevant to this debate, but clearly it is.

------- Defense -------

By pointing out that men need and want sex far more than women, I am proving that Nature has intended for Polygamy to exist. It is without doubt that Nature plays a huge role in forming our judgement on many important issues. For example, the majority of people who are against gay sex are against it simply because it is not natural - it contradicts the main and most fundamental purpose of sex, which is to reproduce. Therefore, Nature's intentions becomes a very powerful tool to use as an argument. In summary, although man's greater need for sex has nothing directly to do with the process of marriage, it does however support the nature of Polygamous marriages.

Plus, I would argue that sex is a large part of marriage and therefore it should be considered in this debate.

3. Polygamy being a successful practice:
Con has correctly pointed out that I have not provided a source for argument number 3. Being a Muslim myself, I have made the mistake of assuming that my opponent understands Islamic Law regarding Polygamy as fully as I do. To amend on my mistake, I will prove that polygamy is a successful practice, but more importantly, that Muslim women are in support of it. This is important because many people think Polygamy is unfair to women.

Below is information from an news article:

In August 2009, The Ashaari Muslim clan founded a "Polygamy Club" that claims the noble aim of helping single mothers, reformed prostitutes and women who feel they are past the marrying age. The founder of the clan is a Muslim woman named Hatijah Aam, who is the fourth wife of Ashaari Muhammad. She is quoted saying: "We want to change the way people perceive polygamy, so that it will be seen as something beautiful instead of something disgusting."

This quotation proves that Muslim woman see Polygamy as something beautiful, promote it, and practice it.

A woman named Kartini, 41, says polygamy has served her well; while she was busy arguing court cases, her husband's first wife would cook, clean and look after the children. "The wives can complement each other," she said. "Of course, you miss your husband and there are natural feelings of competition and jealousy at first. But after a while, you try to become friends and you learn that you can share your problems with each other."

This quotation clearly shows the successful experience a Muslim woman has had in a polygamous marriage.

A businessman named Ikramullah, says "Some people treat polygamy as a laughing matter because they do not fully comprehend it, but a community that practices it would know that it is not bizarre. In fact, you would be teased if you were a man with only one wife."

This quotation suggests that those who truly understand polygamy see it as something very normal. It also suggests that there is a very wide misconception with this practice that has led to its negative reputation.

http://www.polygamy.com...

4. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of mankind:

Con writes "Blatant appeal to tradition coupled with a lot of unsourced information."

--------- Defense ------------

Here is evidence suggesting that Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years:

In his book, 'Iran During the Sassanian Period', Christenson writes: "Polygamy was considered to be the basis of the family. Practically, the number of wives, which a man could have, depended on his means. The poor people apparently could not afford to have more than one wife as a general rule."

In the 'Social History of Iran from the fall of the Sassanians to the fall of the Omayyads' the late Sa'id Nafisi writes: "The number of women whom a man could marry was unlimited and at times it is observed in the Greek documents that one man had hundreds of women in his house."

Montesquieu, quoting a Roman historian, says that several Roman philosophers, who were being tortured by the Christians because they refused to embrace Christianity, fled from Rome and took refuge in the court of the Iranian King, Khusro Parviz. They were astonished to see that not only polygamy was legal there, but the Persian men had intimacy with the wives of others also.

http://www.al-islam.org...

First Kings 11:1-3 indicates that King Solomon had 700 hundred wives and 300 hundred concubines

http://wiki.answers.com...

According to I Chronicles 3, King David had 7 wives

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

5. Religion does not really forbid Polygamy:

Con writes "Who cares? This is a debate about matters of law and in the West religious preference as nothing to do with the law. Also, church influence is not the deciding factor with polygamy."

------- Defense -------

It is common knowledge that laws are created to reflect the values and beliefs of a society. For example, the law that puts murderers behind bars reflect our enduring values of retribution and justice. The law that forces the murderer to compensate the victim's family reflect our value of restitution. How does this have anything to do with religion? Religious teaching are often responsible for many of our strong values and beliefs, such as the belief that homosexuality is wrong, a belief that has been reflected in our law for hundreds of years. Even now, gay activists in Argentina find themselves in a fierce battle with large religious protest groups as same sex marriage law reform takes place. In this sense, religious values directly impacts the outcome of our laws, thus this is a very valid argument.

Thanks.
Korashk

Con

.
.
.

I thank my opponent for his response.

~~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~~

///The reason for my first argument is to prove that in many major countries today, the female population exceeds the male population by MILLIONS, meaning that there will always be millions of women out there who are forced to live without a partner if Polygamy isn't legalized.///

You're making it seem like EVERY man in X Western country has one wife already. This is simply not the case. In America marriage rates are falling [1]. To assert that what you're claiming, that women are going unmarried because of lack of available men, you need to show with evidence that this is the case. You have not done this and instead are backing this point with only a hypothetical scenario where there all men are married and women can't find husbands.
~

///By pointing out that men need and want sex far more than women, I am proving that Nature has intended for Polygamy to exist.///

Again, sex has nothing at all to do with the legal concept of marriage. Currently marriage is not about biology per se. It is about granting legal protections to individuals who enter into binding contracts with the government. Saying that men are naturally polygamous and should therefore be allowed to enter into contracts with multiple individuals does not support your notion.
~

///Plus, I would argue that sex is a large part of marriage and therefore it should be considered in this debate.///

It deals with the social aspects of marriage and literally has nothing to do with the legal one.
~

///3. Polygamy being a successful practice:///

Here is where my opponent's point falls apart. Legal marriage in Islam/Islamic countries is significantly different than it is in America/Western culture. For instance it does not entail nearly as many legal concepts and the government is hardly involved [2]. I will use American marriage as an example as to why it would not work over here. Here is a general overview of the legal rights that are granted by marriage in America [3]. Trying to make sense of these legal niceties would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to say the least. For instance what spouses would have legal rights in regards to a child conceived by only two of the participants? How would more than one individual be able to live off of death benefits from a single person? How would assets be divided in the event of one spouse's death without a last will and testament? The list goes on. Using Islamic polygamy as an example of successful polygamy does not really apply in this situation because marriage is much, much simpler for them.
~

///Here is evidence suggesting that Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years:///

Okay...so you sourced the information. You didn't address or counter the point that this entire contention is an appeal to tradition. the logical fallacy that means "it does not follow that what was once done should be done now." [4]
~

///5. Religion does not really forbid Polygamy:///

I addressed why polygamy is not really feasible above. I believe the explanation applies to this contention.
~

I await my opponent's response.

[1] http://www.divorcemag.com...
[2] http://islam.about.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 2
guesswho

Pro

I thank my opponent for his timely response.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Numerical superiority of females over males:

Con writes: "You're making it seem like EVERY man in X Western country has one wife already. This is simply not the case. In America marriage rates are falling [1]."

My response: Con still seems to be missing the point to my first argument. It really doesn't matter how many men in X Western country currently have a wife or not, the raw statistics I have provided clearly show that it is impossible for every woman to find a husband, period. To clarify on my point, if there are currently 20million women and 18million men living in USA, it doesn't matter how many of those men are married, the reality is there will always be at least 2 million women left over. Therefore, unless polygamy is legalized, at least 2 million women are without a partner.

Con also writes: "To assert that what you're claiming, that women are going unmarried because of lack of available men, you need to show with evidence that this is the case. You have not done this and instead are backing this point with only a hypothetical scenario where there all men are married and women can't find husbands."

My response: Whether women are actually having trouble finding husbands or not, the raw statistics is proof for my case. In life, we must consider all scenarios. If women are not having trouble finding husbands at the moment despite what the statistics show, then good, I'm happy there is no trouble. However, if women are having trouble finding husbands due to women's numerical superiority, which is what the factual statistics is suggesting, then clearly we have the problems I have listed in my first argument (i.e. right to marry). The point here is, if Polygamy is legalized, we are safe under all scenarios.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Males are naturally polygamous:

Con writes: "Again, sex has nothing at all to do with the legal concept of marriage. Currently marriage is not about biology per se. It is about granting legal protections to individuals who enter into binding contracts with the government. Saying that men are naturally polygamous and should therefore be allowed to enter into contracts with multiple individuals does not support your notion."

My response: As I said in my previous defense, this argument has nothing to do with the legal concept of marriage. Rather, it is to prove that Nature has intended for Polygamy to exist and to be practiced and therefore it should be legalized. When it comes to practices like Polygamy, Prostitution, or Gay Marriage, there is the legal aspect of it, i.e. the laws governing the practices, but there is also the Nature aspect of it, i.e. Is it natural? Is it right? My second argument about man being Naturally polygamous is not meant to justify the legal aspect of Polygamy, rather it is meant to justify the latter aspect of Polygamy - the nature of Polygamy. Why is this important? For one thing, we like to legalize things that are considered to be naturally right than wrong. For example, many people think Prostitution or Gay Marriage is naturally wrong, which has made these two practices so tough to legalize over the years. Polygamy does not face this enormous problem, it is justified by Nature, thus it should exist by becoming legalized.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Polygamy being a successful practice:

Con writes: "Here is where my opponent's point falls apart. Legal marriage in Islam/Islamic countries is significantly different than it is in America/Western culture. "

Con also writes: "Trying to make sense of these legal niceties would be extremely difficult and time-consuming to say the least."

My response: First of all, my point does not fall apart simply because of some theoretical problems that could occur if polygamy was to be legalized in the West. Secondly, I never said we must practice polygamy in the West with the same set of parameters surrounding the practice in the East. All I am arguing for is for the fundamental practice of polygamy to exist in the West (Debate: Polygamy should be legalized in the West). All the legal concepts that are required to make Polygamy a fair and sustainable practice in the West can be worked on by legislators before the bill is actually passed and implemented in Western society. Isn't that how all proposed bills turn into laws today? Through numerous hours of revising and editing until it's compatible with our values and the existing law? Sure the editing may be a time-consuming and difficult process but that's what legislators are paid to do. Let me state, no bill is perfect from the start, the bill for polygamy won't be perfect from the start, but that does not mean it cannot exist or to be made better.

Moreover, aside from all the legal stuff, my point under this argument is also to show that females find success in the most basic and fundamental concept of polygamy: sharing a man with another woman. Pointing out the legal concepts is completely irrelevant in that sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Polygamy has been around since the dawn of mankind:

Con writes: Okay...so you sourced the information. You didn't address or counter the point that this entire contention is an appeal to tradition. the logical fallacy that means "it does not follow that what was once done should be done now." [4]

My response: My reason for pointing out this fact is for Con and voters to understand that Polygamy is not a barbarian practice as many people may believe that it is. It was and still is practiced by many civilized societies. This supports my overall stance on the issue in a subtle but important way: It helps to cancel out the initial prejudice many people may have held against this practice, which could have clouded their better judgement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Religion does not really forbid Polygamy:

Con writes: I addressed why polygamy is not really feasible above. I believe the explanation applies to this contention.

My response: I believe I have made it quite clear as to how religion directly has an impact on our laws through establishing society's values and morals. Since Con still does not see the connection, I leave it to voters to judge the merit of this argument.
Korashk

Con

.
.
.

I again thank my opponent for his response and will bring this debate to a conclusion.

~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~

///My response: Con still seems to be missing the point to my first argument. It really doesn't matter how many men in X Western country currently have a wife or not, the raw statistics I have provided clearly show that it is impossible for every woman to find a husband, period. To clarify on my point, if there are currently 20million women and 18million men living in USA, it doesn't matter how many of those men are married, the reality is there will always be at least 2 million women left over. Therefore, unless polygamy is legalized, at least 2 million women are without a partner.///

1.) There are WAY, WAY more than 38 million people in America. My opponent's data is faulty and un-cited.
2.) My opponent has failed to validate this contention because he has not provided evidence that there are in fact women going without marriage because of the sex's numerical superiority, which would be the requirement for this contention to be valid. Even with numerical superiority my opponent fails to realize that in addition to those that can't get married because of unwillingness on the part of others, there are those with literally no desire to get married.
~

///As I said in my previous defense, this argument has nothing to do with the legal concept of marriage. Rather, it is to prove that Nature has intended for Polygamy to exist and to be practiced and therefore it should be legalized.///

Here my opponent concedes the point by saying that this contention has nothing to do with the legal aspect of marriage and commits the naturalistic logical fallacy by asserting that because polygamy is natural is is in some way right or correct.
~

///First of all, my point does not fall apart simply because of some theoretical problems that could occur if polygamy was to be legalized in the West.///

The problems I suggest are not theoretical, they will become an issue if polygamy is ever considered.
~

///Secondly, I never said we must practice polygamy in the West with the same set of parameters surrounding the practice in the East.///

Nor am I, in fact I suggest just the opposite. That polygamy, if legalized, should operate under the same parameters as does traditional marriage.
~

///All the legal concepts that are required to make Polygamy a fair and sustainable practice in the West can be worked on by legislators before the bill is actually passed and implemented in Western society.///

This si true, but doing so would require so much change to the current system of marriage that the finished product would not look like marriage at all, and if it was left similar the system would be extremely easy to abuse for financial benefits in terms of tax exemptions.
~

///Moreover, aside from all the legal stuff...///

There is nothing aside from the legal stuff. Marriage is a LEGAL CONCEPT. Period.
~

///My reason for pointing out this fact is for Con and voters to understand that Polygamy is not a barbarian practice as many people may believe that it is. It was and still is practiced by many civilized societies. This supports my overall stance on the issue in a subtle but important way: It helps to cancel out the initial prejudice many people may have held against this practice, which could have clouded their better judgement.///

Appeal. To. Tradition.
~

And that's all I'm going to do for this debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mlorg 6 years ago
Mlorg
guesswho's definition of polygamy is actually the definition of polygyny. Polygamy is having multiple spouses, not necessarily wives.
Posted by Wikuk 6 years ago
Wikuk
Awww man, Polygamy would lower my number of choices. :(
Posted by guesswho 6 years ago
guesswho
Since I didn't have time to write it in my debate, I'd like to use this opportunity to say thank you to Korashk one last time for his dedication to this debate.

Thanks a lot.
Posted by guesswho 6 years ago
guesswho
Wow, I managed to post it with 10 seconds remaining!
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
You should learn to write english before you try it. Making legitimate points would also be a plus.
Posted by halu09 6 years ago
halu09
disease that can*

and it didnt destroy ur own image*
Posted by halu09 6 years ago
halu09
Im con for it
bcoz whats the importance of getting married f your going to another to have .......
f they continue to have polygamy they have a big chance to have a disease that cac get in having a sex
like AIDS
so f u want to be safe just stay in ur only partner
coz having a polygamy is a worst activities in life bcoz it can destroy ur image in front of others

ur like SATANIST f u have a polygamy!!!
u want it???

and it didnt destroy ur on image but also ur relationships w/ others and specially w/ ur family and most of all to the minds of ur siblings

so ask ur self now!!are u con or pro???
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
If i missed this in the debate, my apologies, but why would the paradigm necessarily be one man and multiple women? It could be one woman and multiple men, or multiple women and multiple men. Yeah, sort of communal. I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but i would have to be consistent in my libertarian perspective.
Posted by guesswho 6 years ago
guesswho
theLwerd, what you are referring to is called sexual communism. It has already occurred in Vietnam and other places, but because it was not a sustainable practice, it soon became obsolete. Things that are not favorable in this world don't live long, that is the difference between polygamy and sexual communism: Polygamy is a natural practice and the fact that it has survived the test of time for this long clearly supports my claim.
Posted by badger 6 years ago
badger
we're all chasing our own interests, thelwerd.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by RazaMobizo 6 years ago
RazaMobizo
guesswhoKorashkTied
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 
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
guesswhoKorashkTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Mlorg 6 years ago
Mlorg
guesswhoKorashkTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by jwljacl 6 years ago
jwljacl
guesswhoKorashkTied
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 
Vote Placed by axM62 6 years ago
axM62
guesswhoKorashkTied
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 Grape 6 years ago
Grape
guesswhoKorashkTied
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 
Vote Placed by Comrade_Ulyanov 6 years ago
Comrade_Ulyanov
guesswhoKorashkTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by twsurber 6 years ago
twsurber
guesswhoKorashkTied
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:30