The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

Red Lumas have trust issues.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,417 times Debate No: 8886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (10)

 

mongeese

Con

Red Luma - http://www.mariowiki.com...
trust issues - problems with choosing whom to trust

I will let PRO start. PRO has the Burden of Proof.

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate.
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate and will now present my argument. However, before I do so, I must point out that my opponent does not get to choose who has the burden of proof in the debate. My opponent is the instigator and thus, is the one making the positive claim. Thus, the burden of proof falls upon him.

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

There are two categorizations of the burden of proof. The first is the legal definition in which the opposition (my opponent) is weighted with the responsibility of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, a case against me (innocent until proven guilty.

The other is the evidentiary burden in which the same requirement is placed on my opponent's shoulders. Enough evidence must be provided by the opposition to disprove a statement excepting the case of the statement of existence. In this case, my opponent is against the resolution and we are not debating the existence of a Red Luma, thus, the burden falls on my opponent.

However, I shall still go about proving my case, it just needs to be said that the burden is not on my side.

***

The Red Luma in "Super Mario Galaxy", when approached, exclaims that he has a secret, but will not reveal it. Furthermore, it can be shown by talking to any of the other characters that they too are in the dark about this Red Luma's secret, since they do not say anything important enough regarding this secret. We can thus conclude that in this video game universe, The Red Luma alone keeps its secret from all other beings, including its other Luma companions.

http://www.mariowiki.com...(species)

This is commonplace in those who have trust issues. This Luma is irrationally selective in revealing its secret as the player must unlock another part of the game before it will reveal its secret, even though the player is supposed to be the hero of the game and this fact is well known.

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

If this Luma does not have any trust issues, why would it keep this secret from its companions? Why would it keep this secret away from its adopted mother Rosalina? And furthermore, why would it keep this secret away from the only being who can take advantage of it; the main character and Hero?

http://www.mariowiki.com...

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

It is plain to see that the Red Luma has problems with choosing whom to trust. However, I will let my opponent respond before I delve into a deeper psychoanalysis of this troubled character.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

My opponent claims that I have the Burden of Proof. However, this is not so.

For one thing, I am CON, and he is PRO.

For another thing, it was specifically established in Round 1 that my opponent, being PRO, has the Burden of Proof.

http://www.debate.org...

My opponent said:
"I believe that in this instance, the burden rests on the contender."
That instance (http://www.debate.org...) is similar to this instance, with the Instigator being CON and assigning the Burden of Proof to the Contender, PRO.

He claims that I am making a positive claim. However, it can easily be seen from both the fact that I am CON and the fact that I have put the Burden of Proof on the Contender that I simply think that there is not enough proof for one to conclude that Red Lumas have trust issues.

"The Red Luma in 'Super Mario Galaxy,' when approached, exclaims that he has a secret, but will not reveal it."
True.

"Furthermore, it can be shown by talking to any of the other characters that they too are in the dark about this Red Luma's secret, since they do not say anything important enough regarding this secret."
Maybe they respect the Red Luma's wish to keep the secret from everybody excluding perhaps Rosalina and the other Lumas. Luigi and the Toad Brigade probably don't know, but the other Lumas and Rosalina are bound to know, but respect the Red Luma's secret being a secret.

"We can thus conclude that in this video game universe, The Red Luma alone keeps its secret from all other beings, including its other Luma companions."
Wrong. The other Lumas are quite likely to know that the Red Lumas guard Red Stars. However, there is no reason for them to tell Mario this secret.

"This Luma is irrationally selective in revealing its secret as the player must unlock another part of the game before it will reveal its secret, even though the player is supposed to be the hero of the game and this fact is well known."
What makes this fact well known? The Lumas had never heard of Mario before. It is quite likely that the power of the Red Star can only be used by those who are worthy, and Mario could only be tested as to whether or not he could use the Red Star at the Gateway Galaxy, which it was impossible for him to reach without enough Grand Stars. This has been seen before with the Star Gate in "Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time."
http://www.mariowiki.com...

"If this Luma does not have any trust issues, why would it keep this secret from its companions?"
It probably doesn't. All of the Lumas probably know what the Red Lumas do. However, Mario is a newcomer to the Comet Observatory, and the Red Luma likely planned to test Mario with the Red Star once possible.

"Why would it keep this secret away from its adopted mother Rosalina?"
Rosalina probably knew the secret. However, why would she bother telling Mario that the Red Luma has a secret, when Mario can ask the Red Luma himself?

"And furthermore, why would it keep this secret away from the only being who can take advantage of it; the main character and Hero?"
The Lumas couldn't be sure that Mario is a hero worthy of the power of the Red Star. It's only natural to test him first. If he proved to be undeserving of the power of the Red Star, the Red Lumas would be glad they kept their secret.

"It is plain to see that the Red Luma has problems with choosing whom to trust."
Why should it trust a random stranger in overalls who randomly came to the Comet Observatory? The Red Luma's trust had to be earned, like all trust.

To sum it up, everybody on the Comet Observatory probably knows the secret, but don't tell the secret to Mario, because that would show disrespect towards the Red Luma's secret. The Red Luma decided to wait to see if Mario was worthy, and then reveal the Red Star.

I'll ask you this: if I were to randomly fly through your front door wearing overalls and tell you that I need to search the universe for Power Stars, would you immediately hand over as much aid as you could, or would you wait to see if I was really serious and honest about it?
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and will begin by pointing out the flaws in his counterpoints.

First, my opponent suggests that since he has stated something, then it must be true. My opponent did not state that by taking the debate, I hold his assignment to be truth. My opponent simply made a statement, one that happens to be false. If I were arguing against moral relativity and just so happened to state that 1 + 1 = 6, this does not mean that for the entire debate, we must operate under that premise. Thus, the mere fact that he says "Pro has the burden" is of the same truth value as "1 + 1 = 6". There is no evidence suggesting it.

Second, my opponent believes he is quoting a situation in which I agree with him. Please note that the quote is incorrect and, applies to a completely different debate from the one he has included the link to. In short, he is deliberatel misquoting me for his own means.

In response to my opponent's querie as to where the burden for this debate lies:

http://www.debate.org...

I respond:

"There can be no general rule to burden of proof until the resolution is known. Once the resolution is known, then the burden is objectively clear. Whether the person is the instigator or the contender, whether the person is PRO or CON, these things can serve as general guidelines but are not always correct.

If we were to decide on one, then technically, the Instigator/Contender distinction would be the best. However, that does not mean that in this sort of situation:

http://www.debate.org...

the burden rests on the Instigator. I believe that in this instance, the burden rests on the contender."

Note that I was referring to the "instance" that I quoted, which is preceded by me stating that not all debates have burdens which fall under the "Instigator/Contender" distinction. Note again that I was *not* referring to the debate which my opponent posted and note that the debate which my opponent posted is vastly different from the debate I was referring to. In the debate that I was actually referring to, the resolution dealt with the existence of something (God), and I have already listed that as an exception in my last round. In the debate that my opponent CLAIMED that I was referring to, CON as the instigator held the burden because he was making the claim. Thus, it still stands: CON has the burden in this case because he is the instigator and he is making the claim.

If my opponent meant to make the resolution "there is not enough proof for one to conclude that Red Lumas have trust issues", then he should have made that the resolution. Unfortunately, he did not, and the resolution and this debate is formulated in a way such that the burden rests on the one making the proposition, the Instigator, in which he makes a claim that must be substantiated.

****

My opponent's responses can be shortened into a total of three counterpoints:

1. The secret of the Red Luma is not exclusive to the Red Luma
2. The secrecy of the Red Luma is justified

First of all, my opponent provides no conclusive evidence for either scenario, only assumptions. There is nothing that suggests that the other Luma know the secret, not is there any evidence suggesting that Rosalina knows the secret. Thus, without concrete evidence, how can we say that the Luma definitely has no trust issues?

Secondly, I concede the point that the Red Luma may have suffered some sort of paranoia in favor of another interpretation: The Red Luma's characteristics as portrayed by my opponent are clearly defense mechanisms.

Let us first go over the facts:

http://www.mariowiki.com...
http://www.mariowiki.com...

Red Luma assigns a mission and provides the red star to Mario in order to complete the mission. In completing the mission, the prize of using the Red Star in the observatory is awarded.

The Red Star powerup, which is allegedly "protected" by the Red Luma, is thus a powerup that is relatively useless in the game, opening up only a few trivial things that are not of much importance to the plot. The fact that the Red Luma is placed in charge of something so insignificant while still announcing with such pride that it has "a secret", is essentially a pathetic cry for attention and respect.

Other Luma are seen to provide much more in the game, thus the Red Luma may possibly be an outcast of sorts due to its lack of skill in any other area. This feeling of inadequacy led to hyperinflated egoism. The "trust" isn't being earned at all. In fact, the Luma probably gave up its secret like a fat girl gives up her virginity on Prom night: last ditch effort to avoid being a complete social outcast. Since Mario was being established as a hero and recognized by Rosalina, the Red Luma had no choice but to join in, any way possible.

The issue isn't about not trusting enough, it's about not being able to rationally place trust. The Luma *does* have trust issues, but not in unfairly keeping Mario from its secret, its trust issue is basically a pathological, unjustified trust in his own self worth. We must then wonder whether or not this poor soul has the mental capacity to trust at all. It would probably confide its secret in anyone who he thinks would find it useful and boost its self esteem.

A further exploration in the next round. I shall let my opponent respond first.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

"First, my opponent suggests that since he has stated something, then it must be true."
My opponent's example is using a statement that is logically false. I have a better example.
If I say in Round 1 that the debate will be in LD format, is the debate in LD format? Yes. If my opponent then does not go in LD format, I would point out that the debate is LD format, and ask for him or her to try again.
This example is more appropriate for comparison; rather than being a statement that is probably meant to support an argument, it is a statement that sets up the debate under certain condition.

I apologize for the misquoting. I though that you were referring to the debate I made in the original post. I thought that you were contrasting the two debates.

"If my opponent meant to make the resolution 'there is not enough proof for one to conclude that Red Lumas have trust issues,' then he should have made that the resolution..."
That was what the statement "PRO has the Burden of Proof" was supposed to accomplish. The proposed resolution is long and complicated. It is much simpler to have a simple resolution, and then establish that PRO has BoP for the debate.
Plus, even with that resolution, I would have to prove that there is not enough proof, which would mean analyzing every bit of possibly relevant information about Red Lumas and showing that it does not support the idea of Red Lumas having trust issues.

Therefore, I believe that my opponent still has the Burden of Proof.

"First of all, my opponent provides no conclusive evidence for either scenario, only assumptions. There is nothing that suggests that the other Luma know the secret, not is there any evidence suggesting that Rosalina knows the secret. Thus, without concrete evidence, how can we say that the Luma definitely has no trust issues?"
As the Burden of Proof is on my opponent, this statement becomes irrelevant.

"The Red Star powerup, which is allegedly 'protected' by the Red Luma, is thus a powerup that is relatively useless in the game, opening up only a few trivial things that are not of much importance to the plot."
However, Mario probably was not disappointed in being able to fly around the Comet Observatory, as it made transportation and obtaining the many scattered 1-Ups much easier.
http://www.wiichat.com...
"[I]t[']s pretty cool and helps you out on the purple coin missions."
See? This player agrees that it was cool.

"The fact that the Red Luma is placed in charge of something so insignificant while still announcing with such pride that it has 'a secret,' is essentially a pathetic cry for attention and respect."
Taking pride in what you have is pathetic? Note that the Red Star is used to get the red Power Star, so it is not insignificant.

"Other Luma[s] are seen to provide much more in the game, thus the Red Luma may possibly be an outcast of sorts due to its lack of skill in any other area."
Most of the Lumas fly around the Comet Observatory chit-chatting without really doing anything for Mario. Others just inform Mario where he is, or of random facts that don't have any relevance to anything whatsoever.
How do you know that Red Lumas can't do anything besides provide Red Stars? Plus, the Red Stars are more useful than, "This couch is the comfiest!"
http://www.myspace.com...
(The caption underneath the Luma picture is a quote from Super Mario Galaxy, where a Luma serves no purpose other than to inform Mario of couch "comfiness.")

"This feeling of inadequacy led to hyperinflated egoism."
Does the Red Luma ever say that it has an important secret? No. All it does is say that it has a secret. It never lies about its importance.

"The 'trust' isn't being earned at all."
Yes, it is. Mario earned the Luma's trust by showing that he was capable of using the Red Star. The Red Luma probably knew that only the worthy could use the Red Star, so it knew that it could trust Mario from then on.

"Since Mario was being established as a hero and recognized by Rosalina, the Red Luma had no choice but to join in, any way possible."
The Red Luma could have done nothing, like all of the Yellow and Blue Lumas that can be seen aimlessly floating around in the Comet Observatory.

"The Luma *does* have trust issues, but not in unfairly keeping Mario from its secret, its trust issue is basically a pathological, unjustified trust in his own self worth."
It never said that it had a lot of self worth. It just said that it had a secret, and it wasn't telling. The Red Luma eventually was able to test Mario and find that Mario was trustworthy, at which point, it gave Mario access to Red Stars.

"We must then wonder whether or not this poor soul has the mental capacity to trust at all."
It trusts Mario at the end. Of course it has the mental capacity to trust.

"It would probably confide its secret in anyone who he thinks would find it useful and boost its self esteem."
No. If it did, it would have told Mario immediately. Instead, it waited to find out if Mario really was trustworthy, which is not a problem at all, but instead, is rational thinking.

Now, I'd like to point out two things before I let my opponent take over:

1. The Red Luma is a child.

It was mentioned by Rosalina in her penultimate speech that the Lumas were still growing up. This implies that the Red Luma is a child, and thinks like a child. Children generally take pride in things of less importance than what adults would. For example, a child might be proud of the fact that he has a really cool-looking rock. A Red Star is much more useful and important than a cool-looking rock. The point is, it is completely normal for children to take pride in having seemingly irrelevant things. It is not a problem.

2. We probably haven't seen the full power of the Red Star.

http://www.mariowiki.com...

It is quite likely that the Red Star will be seen to have more use in Super Mario Galaxy 2's sequel. In that case, the Red Star would have been a very important secret for the Red Luma to guard. We've only seen a limited use of the Red Star, when it is probably more important than we think it is. This would justify the Red Luma's guarding the Red Star.

I would also like to point out that my opponent did not respond to my question at the end of Round 2.

In conclusion, all of the Red Luma's actions are justifiable, and we have no reason to diagnose the Red Luma with trust issues. Vote CON.

Thank you for this debate, Kleptin. I wasn't expecting so much psychoanalysis.
Kleptin

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for the debate and I hope that we can do so again. Having said that, I will now conclude.

I will comment on the issue of the burden as a side note, as it is already the end of the debate. My opponent accuses me of using a weighted example when he himself has used an even worse one. Making a debate LD format is an option, the Burden of proof depends on the resolution. What my opponent argues after that is irrelevant because not only did he concede the misquote, but he also conceded that he phrased the resolution contrary to how he wished it to be. If this is the case, he could have argued that point instead of wasting time round after round. Thus, it is clear that my opponent just deliberately dragged this side-debate on until the end in the hopes that I would drop it. Regardless of what my opponent believes, the burden rests with anyone making a positive claim, and that is my opponent. I am simply negating his evidence and offering contrary evidence.

My opponent's argument in the above response, as well as the majority of this entire debate, is in detailing how the Red Luma was justified in withholding its secret. However, as I have tried to make clear, this "justification" is not only based on assumptions, but the lack of hard evidence makes this point irrelevant.

First, I would like to say that I did not answer my opponent's question at the end of round 2 because it was a rhetorical question and a loaded question, one does not need to answer questions of that type. If a stranger appeared on your doorstep, one would not tell it a secret, NOR would one tell the stranger that it has a secret. The Red Luma's act of "taunting" or "teasing" is a cry for attention or a means to an end, not an act of honesty.

(see attached video)

#t=2m5s

My opponent makes the argument that since the Luma is a child, this justifies his self-aggrandizement and psychological disorders. A child who trusts everyone has trust issues. A child who trusts no one has trust issues. A child who purposely forces people to jump through hoops and deceives them into earning their "trust", has trust issues.

And of course, this is exactly what we see here, as I have stated in previous rounds. My opponent is heralding this Red Luma as a gatekeeper, which means that he has been fooled by the Red Luma himself. While it is convenient for Mario to be able to use the Red Power Star, the hoops he has to jump through in order to appease this Red Luma are far greater than the prize is worth.

http://www.gamefaqs.com...

My opponent is right about the one-ups, but 2 extra lives are not worth all the trouble. In this source, one player accuses it of being "useless" and even a rebutting commenter conceded that its use could be replaced by other means. My opponent's point about it being useful in a later game is irrelevant because it is not only speculation, but a different game. We are talking about the Red Luma of this game and nothing else.

Given that, can we still say that this Red Luma is justified in playing gatekeeper? As stated in previous rounds, the Red Luma has a psychological disorder. It overemphasizes its traits and abilities (in this case, as the guard for an unimportant and optional powerup) to the point where it not only taunts and teases Mario, but also deprives Mario until it can meet goals that go above and beyond the reward.

This Red Luma has a whole score of problems, but the one that I have pointed out in the greatest detail is its difficulty bestowing trust. It is difficult to give trust when you are simply using someone for your own personal gain. In this case, the Red Luma was just looking for some dolt to perform extraordinary feats. It is plain to see that there is no "trust" going on, since the Red Luma is simply trying to get an ego-boost. Hook them with curiosity, give them a crappy reward for an extreme feat in order to inflate the value of the reward and the value of its guardian.

It is plain to see that this Red Luma, possibly a sheltered and ostracized social outcast, has some significant psychological problems, of which pathological distrust is one of them.

The resolution is affirmed. I thank my opponent for this debate and urge the audience to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
"If it could be clearer that the burden were on CON,"

Nice subjunctive. mongeese, take note.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I suggest you try it. It's a great game.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Personal note now that it is over:

I DID NOT enjoy this debate. I clicked on "accept" a little too fast, without paying enough attention to the Pro/Con allocation, but I figured that I should give it a try instead of accepting and nulling the debate via first round forfeit like a coward >.>

I have also never played Super Mario Galaxy XD
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
C: Tie- Conduct was fine on both sides. Arguing the burden of proof is not against conduct as it is an issue of debate and was an important point.
S&G: Tie- No egregious errors on either part.
A: CON- Although PRO's arguments were good, they would have only worked if the burden really were on CON. However, I did not feel that PRO did a very good job substantiating that. If it could be clearer that the burden were on CON, then PRO would win because speculation v speculation leads to an easy victory for the one who does not hold the burden. Thus, CON gets the points.
S: PRO- CON clearly offered less sources, and PRO's sources all supported his argument.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Red Lumas have trust issues."
I don't see how CON has any burden to prove this to be entirely false. I believe BOP lies with PRO.

Conduct: CON (trying to force a BOP on CON when the resolution obviously can only be correctly interpretted as with PRO. PRO never dropped this, and I thought it was annoying enough to award a point for)
S/G: TIE (no major inringements, mongeese: parentheses and quotations are minor)
ARG: CON (BOP not met. However, if BOP was the other way, then this would have gone to PRO. I can then see how votes the other way are justified).
Sources: PRO (7-10)
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I was really, really hoping that vote bombers would ignore this debate, at least. So much for that.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
B/A - CON
Conduct - TIED
S/G - CON
PRO misplaced quotation marks, and had some parintheses problems.
Arguments - CON
I don't buy PRO's dismissal of a connection between the LD and BoP, and PRO didn't back up the claim that the Red Luma made any aggrandizing to its own abilities, because it did not.
Sources - TIED
Both sides used enough.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Ditto patsox's RFD.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
RFD:

Conduct: Pro -- con kept trying to ensure that the burden of proof was shifted to pro, which is lame.

Spelling and grammar: Tied.

Arguments: Pro -- he effectively showed the resolution to be true. Con's points were often of little relevance, and again, he tried to shift the burden of proof, which is an annoying tactic.

Sources: Tied, I suppose -- both used around the same number of different sources.
Posted by nikiri 7 years ago
nikiri
I would think that so long one offers evidence to prove his point, the debate can proceed.
The rule of BoP it is not vital to the debate. It is not that you HAVE to fulfill the obligation, but you want to, because BoP gives you disadvantages.

To prove my point that BoP is not vital, two individuals completely new to a debate can still debate, regardless whether they know burden of proof or not.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
mongeeseKleptinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
mongeeseKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
mongeeseKleptinTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
mongeeseKleptinTied
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 untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
mongeeseKleptinTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
mongeeseKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
mongeeseKleptinTied
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 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 tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
mongeeseKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
mongeeseKleptinTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
mongeeseKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04