The Instigator
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
58 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Losing
49 Points

Public Nudity Should Be Legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 23 votes the winner is...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,902 times Debate No: 13226
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (61)
Votes (23)

 

FREEDO

Pro

=== INTRODUCTION ===

I affirm the proposition that any person should be free to choose whether to wear cloths or not in either a personal or public environment without any threat of legal action against their decision.

Con will be arguing that people should be forced to wear cloths in public places rather than be allowed the choice to go naked.

I recognize that I have the burden of proof in this debate.

=== DEFINITIONS ===

Public place:

1. A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.
[1]

2. Any social space such as a town square that is open and accessible to all.
[2]

Nudity:

1. Having no clothing; naked.

2. Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body.
[3]

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://definitions.uslegal.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you for creating such an interesting debate, FREEDO. I am absolutely positive that it will be interesting.

Anyway, since the Proposition has the burden of proof, he needs to prove his argument.
I await his response and hope he replies soon.
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Pro

I thank XStrikeX for accepting this debate and expressing interest in it.

=== ARGUMENT ===

Harm Done:

I contend that the anti-nudist policies are unjustifiable due to them causing more harm than any it could have stopped. Indeed, I say, being naked does no harm. I ask you, what harm does nudity cause? None. Does it cause pain? No. Is it assault? No. Does it involve violence? No. Will people be traumatized--will our children be ripped of their purity? That's ridiculous.
The policies on the other hand--are they violence? Yes, absolutely. This entirely innocent person is taken into custody be police, which could potentially involve being tackled, beaten, cornered, tazered and shackled. This person who did harm to no one is then deprived of their liberty through violence and often have property confiscated in the form of a fine.
I could link to various sources dealing with the punishment that is given to "indecent exposure" but unfortunately they all contained pictures of people in the nude. It seems the very anti-nude rules applied to this website have harmed the fabric of this debate.
I will expand this argument later if necessary.
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you for responding and for expressing interest in my expression of interest.

Refutations

"Indeed, I say, being naked does no harm. I ask you, what harm does nudity cause? None. Does it cause pain? No. Is it assault? No. Does it involve violence? No. Will people be traumatized--will our children be ripped of their purity? That's ridiculous."

This actually is one of my actual arguments, so just read further to see the refutation + argument.

"The policies on the other hand--are they violence? Yes, absolutely. This entirely innocent person is taken into custody be police, which could potentially involve being tackled, beaten, cornered, tazered and shackled. This person who did harm to no one is then deprived of their liberty through violence and often have property confiscated in the form of a fine."

Is there a problem with this? It's common knowledge that the United States does not permit nudists to run freely amok on the streets. Nudists or just people who suddenly have the feeling of undressing should obey the law and not commit this crazy act in public. If someone truly wants to reveal his or her body, then do it in a private place, such as nudist colony. Furthermore, I have never heard of a nude person being beaten or tortured by the US police. I believe torture is illegal by the government in the US, so thus, no nudist will be physically harmed [1]. Torture and physical pain is a cruel and unusual punishment which violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Arguments

1. Public nudity causes harm. Would you want your own young child or say, a wandering four year old to suddenly encounter a nudist? This is indecent and will scar the child for the rest of his or her life. As the child grows up and hits puberty where all those hormones start kicking in, that becomes a bigger problem. Being already exposed to nudity, the children may develop an addiction to pornography or other inappropriate actions.

2. Breasts and penises are not things people express without any emotion. Those body parts are sex tools. Walking around nude scars children for life and certainly does not place a good impression on other people.

3. Truly no need. Why do you need to go around walking naked? If you want to show your muscles, then just wear a piece of clothing that shows your muscles. Clothing was made to be worn. It's not a handcuff that restricts you from doing things. It's just a shirt, pants, and shoes.

4. Not in the public. If you really, really have the (weird) urge to go and express yourself, do it somewhere in private, where children or other adults who don't want to see you cannot see you, such as a nudist beach or a nudist colony.
You will certainly fit right in there.

[By the way, whenever I say "you," I am not referring to my opponent, FREEDO. I am merely using it as an example of an anonymous person.]

5. People can get sick and/or feel uncomfortable. Clothes are also made for warmth and protection, besides fashion. If there is a person who is not wearing anything at all, he/she can injure him/herself. A person wearing no shoes can hurt his feet by stepping on a small shard of glass or burn them on hot asphalt. A cold wind and temperature can cause a cold or fever.

I await my opponent's response.

Source:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Pro

I thank XStrikeX for responding to my response and expressing interest in my expression of interest in his expression of interest in my debate.

=== RESPONSES ===

//Nudists or just people who suddenly have the feeling of undressing should obey the law and not commit this crazy act in public.//

On what grounds shouldn't they do it? Whether they should or should not do it is independent of whether it should or should not be legal. It may or may not necessarily be good for someone to slap themselves in the face. Should it be illegal? And on top of that I'd argue it's not only something that shouldn't be illegal but also not necessarily something they shouldn't do. They can have a good reason to be doing what they're doing.

// Furthermore, I have never heard of a nude person being beaten or tortured by the US police. I believe torture is illegal by the government in the US, so thus, no nudist will be physically harmed [1]. Torture and physical pain is a cruel and unusual punishment which violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.//

I never said torture. I do not THINK the government is systematically capturing all the nudists and sticking them in torture chambers...I don't really know...but we'll leave that out of the discussion since that was just not one of contentions and I don't really have any reason to think that.

However! Physical pain is certainly not being interpreted as cruel and unusual punishment and in contradiction of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by any level of the United States government. In-fact, physical pain is widely implemented by the government in the form of supposedly "less than lethal weapons", which include the taser, riot-gun, high-pressure hoses and many others. [1] The taser is the most likely to be used against a nude individual and can be excruciatingly painful delivering 50,000 volts to that individual. Tasers can sometimes inflict death and their use is even outlawed in various countries for both civilians and police do to their being perceived as inhumane. [2]

I have a video of an innocent nude man being tazed by cops for refusing to put cloths on. A crowd is watching the whole thing unfold and are obviously very angry at the police officers since the man was non-violent and did nothing wrong, un-like the cops. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to post this video since it is uncensored.

//Would you want your own young child or say, a wandering four year old to suddenly encounter a nudist?//

I, honestly, wouldn't care. Why should I be afraid? They're not harming my child. They're minding their own business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudity. If there were we would be born with cloths on.

//This is indecent and will scar the child for the rest of his or her life.//

This is an incredibly fallacious and possibly disingenuous assertion. Prove it or drop it. How will they be scarred by nudity; something that is natural? Do they not see their own nudity? Do they not need to feed from their mother's breast as an infant? Will they not read of the sexual organs in biology books?

//As the child grows up and hits puberty where all those hormones start kicking in, that becomes a bigger problem. Being already exposed to nudity, the children may develop an addiction to pornography or other inappropriate actions.//

Do you know what puberty means? It means that, biologically, they are now ready for sexual intercourse. Of course, that may be independent of whether they are emotionally and intellectually ready for such a thing. Nonetheless, puberty is the most pivotal time to start learning and understanding human anatomy. Entering life unprepared in this field can be disastrous and there's really no need to suppress the discovery of such incites; that would serve no purpose other than upholding outdated, unintellectual and unfounded taboos which desperately need doing away with for the progression of a healthy society.

//Breasts and penises are not things people express without any emotion. Those body parts are sex tools.//

Completely untrue. We were born without cloths, nudity is out natural state. Being nude may easily be done in an act of pursuing comfortability. On a hot day the cooking sweat captured by cloths can be almost unbearable. In the cold cloths can keep one warm but in the heat that is the last thing you would want. Another perfect reason people want to go nude is to avoid unsightly tan-lines. When we wear cloths our areas which are so unjustly called "indecent" never reach the light of the life giving sun. This leaves many people with bleachy buns--who wants that?!

//Walking around nude scars children for life and certainly does not place a good impression on other people.//

Prove that it could possibly do any emotional damage! It makes absolutely no evolutionary sense for this to occur. As for people getting a good impression--are they justified in being offended? Sure, they have the right not to like it and look away just like the nudist has the right to be nude but do they really have a good reason for being so negative about it? It's a silly and pointless taboo that accomplishes nothing. If they're offended then it's their fault for being stupid.

//Truly no need. Why do you need to go around walking naked? If you want to show your muscles, then just wear a piece of clothing that shows your muscles. Clothing was made to be worn. It's not a handcuff that restricts you from doing things. It's just a shirt, pants, and shoes.//

Like I just explained; that's completely untrue. There are many perfectly reasonable purposes one could have for being naked. And it's not your place to tell them they shouldn't when they're clearly not hurting anyone.

Besides the reasons I've already described there are more. They might just be doing it for fun. Running around naked can easily be fun without being sexual. Or get this--they may even be doing it to protest unjust anti-nudity laws! The Boston Nudist Party.

//Not in the public. If you really, really have the (weird) urge to go and express yourself, do it somewhere in private, where children or other adults who don't want to see you cannot see you, such as a nudist beach or a nudist colony.
You will certainly fit right in there.//

That's life-style segregation. You're forcing anyone who wants to mind their own business a certain way to only be themselves with others like them in a special area. It's tyranny! Why stop their? Shouldn't we do that with any life-style choice you disagree with? Lets say you don't like emo fashion. Should we force them to go to emo-camps?

//[By the way, whenever I say "you," I am not referring to my opponent, FREEDO. I am merely using it as an example of an anonymous person.]//

Well...streaking does kinda sound fun...

//People can get sick and/or feel uncomfortable.//

If someone would seriously become ill from seeing nudity then they have a personal medical issue that they need to sort out with their doctor.

//Clothes are also made for warmth and protection, besides fashion. If there is a person who is not wearing anything at all, he/she can injure him/herself. A person wearing no shoes can hurt his feet by stepping on a small shard of glass or burn them on hot asphalt. A cold wind and temperature can cause a cold or fever.//

Is it the governments role to force someone to only do what it sees as healthy? Then why stop there? Outlaw cigarettes and do-nuts, force everyone to brush their teeth.

Remember, I'm not arguing that nudity is something everyone should do. I'm arguing that people who want to should be allowed to.

=== NOTE ===

I had an additional argument which covered how this is a pointless taboo but I ran out of room.

I pass the podium to Con! LET IT HANG LOOSE!

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
XStrikeX

Con

Many thanks, once again, to my opponent for creating this debate and sticking through with it until the end.
This is the final round so I'll be refuting my opponent's arguments and telling you, the audience, why the CON should win this debate.

Refutations

"On what grounds shouldn't they do it? Whether they should or should not do it is independent of whether it should or should not be legal."

Well, I mean, that wasn't one of my contentions. It was simply my statement for why nudity should not be legalized. My other arguments go over this statement in more detail.

"I never said torture. I do not THINK the government is systematically capturing all the nudists and sticking them in torture chambers."

I believe you're exaggerating torture a little. Torture is physical pain, usually severe or intense [1]. It is illegal to "beat" a person, even a nudist, especially as a police officer. Your very own argument has stated that if their is a nudist, then he can be beaten up by a police officer. I have disproved this argument and I have never, ever heard of a person being hurt because he is nude. Restrained, most likely, but not physically harmed.

"A crowd is watching the whole thing unfold and are obviously very angry at the police officers since the man was non-violent and did nothing wrong, un-like the cops."

Au contraire. The man clearly did something wrong. It's obvious that you are not allowed to go prancing around in public nude! He disobeyed that law and needs to be restrained.

Furthermore, I do not see how tasering a nude is relevant to this topic. Just because a person committing a crime is hurt by a police officer DOES NOT mean that that crime should be legalized.

"I, honestly, wouldn't care. Why should I be afraid? They're not harming my child. They're minding their own business. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudity. If there were we would be born with cloths on."

That's rather odd. Most people that I myself know would shriek in horror. Anyways, nudity does in fact harm a child. I will expand on this in my own arguments and prove it, as my opponent has asked.

"Do you know what puberty means? It means that, biologically, they are now ready for sexual intercourse. Of course, that may be independent of whether they are emotionally and intellectually ready for such a thing. Nonetheless, puberty is the most pivotal time to start learning and understanding human anatomy."

If one is studying anatomy at that age, it's fine. When it's not for educational purposes, such as just wandering on the street naked, it then becomes a large problem, leading up to more inappropriate actions, such as watching pornography and having the urge to rape someone. There is a fine line between educational, human growth purposes and walking around naked for absolutely no valid reason.

"We were born without cloth[e]s, nudity is out natural state. Being nude may easily be done in an act of pursuing comfortability. On a hot day the cooking sweat captured by cloths can be almost unbearable. In the cold cloths can keep one warm but in the heat that is the last thing you would want. Another perfect reason people want to go nude is to avoid unsightly tan-lines."

I hope that the audience realizes that all of these actions can be done in a private area. If you are hot and uncomfortable, then use of the machines we built. Turn on a fan or an air conditioner, or simply strip to the bare essentials. If you're in a private area, then fine, take it all off. If you want to avoid uneven tans, then simply go to a nude beach, where you can tan everywhere perfectly, and it is not illegal.

"You're forcing anyone who wants to mind their own business a certain way to only be themselves with others like them in a special area."

I would never have thought that minding your own business means running around in public. If you're minding your own business, you are being private and shouldn't be doing anything to anyone else. However, by being nude, you are! You're forcing your own nude body into other people's minds. If you just want to be naked, then do it a nude beach, a nudist colony, or a "non-segregated" place at home, just like my opponent says.

"Is it the governments role to force someone to only do what it sees as healthy?"

There are many instances in which a government has stepped in to save lives, such as suicidal cases. Governments try to prevent suicides and deaths. Cigarettes don't cause deaths straight away. Cigarettes don't cause altered, dangerous behavior, unlike other addictive drugs.

Main Arguments

Here is where I will be arguing as to why the Opposition should win this debate.

1. Children will be harmed. As to my opponent's request and some comments from the viewers, I will prove to you why nudity not for educational purposes can cause harm. Nudity has attributed to the rise of premarital sex and teenage pregnancy in countries like the United States and Canada [2]. It has also led to violence such as rape and sexually transmitted infections such as the HIV virus. According to psychologist T. W. Smith, more than half of the teenage females in the United States have had premarital sex before age 18. This dilemma is attributed to nudity and pornography. This clearly is a problem in our own country.

2. Nudity increases disease. There are various sexually transmitted diseases that harm those who have contracted it. Seeing non-educational nudity leads to more problems and sometimes premarital sex. The Centers for Disease Control found that in the United States, about 15 million new cases of sexually transmitted infections are diagnosed every year, bringing the total number of Americans afflicted with incurable STIs to 65 million.

3. There truly is absolutely no need to express yourself in public that way. If you really have an urge to go naked, then undress at a nude beach, nudist colony, or in your own house. My opponent has never offered true, valid reasons as to why a person would need to go nude and the irrational reasons he has offered have been refuted.

4. A little expansion of #3. If you need to go naked, do it in a private area, where children can't see you and therefore can't be harmed and where friends, neighbors, or complete strangers won't be bothered.

5. Nudity in this form is not educational and will not help a child during the adolescence stages mature. It can seriously harm someone, cause mental disorder, and scar a boy or girl for the rest of his or her life. The body parts of men and women are sex-related possessions in this case.

The Opposition deserves to win this debate.
Nudity can directly and indirectly cause harm to a child's lifestyle and the rest of his life. One should not be allowed to commit such an act if it causes harm to others, especially children.
The CON has refuted all of the PRO's major arguments.
The PRO has made some spelling and grammar errors.
The CON has stated reliable sources that have more relevance to this debate than the PRO.
For these reasons, the topic is negated.
Please vote CON and thank you for this debate.

Sources:
1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
2. http://www.ehow.com...
Debate Round No. 3
61 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
I just reread my comment I meant to say nudity should not be ILLEGAL.
Posted by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
Too bad I missed the voting period, this is actually a topic of interest to me. I agree that nudity should not be legal as it does not cause anyone harm.
Posted by Enivitable 6 years ago
Enivitable
Nudity is an act that clearly has been made illegal for unfair reasons. Sadly, the idea nudity is disgusting or dirty has been so deeply ingrained in society I doubt it will ever change. We might as well move on to other issues.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
Very well put BritishNaturism.
Posted by BritishNaturism 6 years ago
BritishNaturism
@Rodriguez47
I'm glad to hear that your cellulite statement wasn't serious, but as I pointed out to dankeyes11 sarcasm is a dangerous tool and in this case comes into the category of joke that is offensive.

If you have never experienced social nudity it will probably surprise you to know that without clothes we notice each others bodies less, not more! I suspect that this is because clothes tend to emphasise features; the most obvious example of this is a woman's cleavage in a low-cut dress - without the dress the cleavage doesn't even exist in the same way...

Naturism isn't about seeing or being seen, it is about how it feels. It is also a great leveller; prince or pauper look the same naked. So it doesn't matter how much cellulite someone has, it is the person inside that cellulite that naturists are interested in getting to know.

Here in the UK public nudity is legal, provided it is not done to deliberately shock or offend (e.g. the classic 'flasher'). This does not mean that people are going naked anywhere and everywhere. There is still a tendency for nudity to be confined to certain areas designated for the purpose, or simply commonly frequented by naturists.

Unfortunately this can have a negative effect, as these areas can attract an undesirable voyeuristic or exhibitionist element who believe that a naturist beach, for example, is a suitable location for 'dogging' - it is not! Naturists get just as upset by such behaviour as textiles, possibly more so as we see it as sullying our reputation. Those nations where social nudity is more common and has spread beyond the 'designated areas' do not suffer from this kind of problem.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
@BritsihNaturisim
The cellulite statement wasn't serious. Just thought that would be really disgusting to my eyes. I know humans have different ways of judging what is good to them and is not.

In truth I would go for not having public nudity legalized and only in certain non-common areas. The great majority of humans have adopted to concealment for self-privacy. For those who believe that nudity should be accepted should be free to do so but away from those who appreciate clothing.
Posted by dankeyes11 6 years ago
dankeyes11
"Character" is the perfect word to describe him. He has actually performed that "song" in concerts in front of tens of thousands at this point! I'm glad you enjoyed it - he's a funny fellow.
Posted by BritishNaturism 6 years ago
BritishNaturism
@dankeyes11
I get it now! The 'Victim's Brother' is quite a character isn't he! You are right, I hadn't seen this video and its take-off. Thanks for that.
Posted by dankeyes11 6 years ago
dankeyes11
@BritishNaturism

Oh I absolutely know that people believe what I posted - I believe the Con argument represents those views exactly in the debate! I'm glad we agree though - and I actually appreciate the links as well.

I assumed my sarcasm would be detected because I referenced a popular YouTube video (40M+ views), but it's a largely American phenomenon, so I wouldn't expect you to be aware of it!

Feel free to check out the videos I was referencing here:
Posted by BritishNaturism 6 years ago
BritishNaturism
@dankeyes11: Sarcasm is a dangerous tool! I don't consider my reply a waste of time, it is always good to have the opportunity to argue our case. I'm glad to hear you were not being serious, but believe me - we do come across people who truly believe what you posted!!!

Have fun!
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
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 feverish 6 years ago
feverish
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
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 xxdarkxx 6 years ago
xxdarkxx
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by KodyHarris 6 years ago
KodyHarris
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
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 Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
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 born2read7 6 years ago
born2read7
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wesswll 6 years ago
wesswll
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
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 mjalal100 6 years ago
mjalal100
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by bsufan101 6 years ago
bsufan101
FREEDOXStrikeXTied
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