The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 4/1/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,780 times Debate No: 7637
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (10)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

Greetings ladies and gentlemen; hello to the distinguished judges, the audience and my opponent, herr Johnicle. In today's case, I shall uphold the position that patriotism should be taught in schools.

TO MY OPPONENT: However, before I start, I request that my opponent allow cross examination in the comment section. Naturally, CON can question me after my first round and I will question CON after his first round.

TO THE JUDGES: In addition, being that I am unsure of how to interpret the resolution (as this is the first time I have been engaged on a debate concerning this matter), I shall be providing two different interpretations of it via my contentions. Keep in mind: You only need to buy ONE of my interpretations in order to conclude that I have upheld my side of the resolution.

With all formalities out of the way, let us proceed.

=====================================================
CONTENTION #1: Knowledge is beneficial
=====================================================

As the great Samuel Johnson put it,, "Knowledge is more than equivalent to force."

In this interpretation, I am insisting that the resolution is referring to the act of informing students about the subject of patriotism as well as the history associated with it. In this interpretation, one can hardly find a problem given that patriotism is already covered in most history classes (i.e. classes that teach students about the American Revolution).

Of course, I see no reason as to why this would exclude teaching students about the act of being patriotic alone. All of this would go about benefiting students and that they would know more about patriotism. In knowing more about patriotism, one of the many benefits would be that students would be able to better understand those who are patriotic (understanding others is highly beneficial in terms of promoting peace). In addition, through understanding the history of patriotism thoroughly, this will provide students the ability to accurately determine whether or not they feel they ought to be patriotic as well. All of this is merely the tip of the iceberg. The fact of the matter is that knowledge is power. :D

=====================================================
CONTENTION #2: Patriotic classes could easily be mandatory
=====================================================

This interpretation assumes that the resolution is referring to the act of encouraging students to be patriotic.

I am well aware that there remain those who find the notion of being encouraged to act patriotic to be highly offensive just as I am well aware of those who find the notion of having to participate in a weight lifting or debate class to be intolerable. Thus, like most debate and weight lifting classes, I would propose that classes which encourage students to be patriotic only be issued as optional. This would uphold the concept of liberty and individuals would have no reason to be offended. It's a win/win scenario. :D

=====================================================
CONCLUSION
=====================================================

I have provided two interpretations which both demonstrate the act of patriotism being taught in schools to be harmless. The first deals with an interpretation which merely builds up students' knowledge on the matter of patriotism. The second points out that there is no reason for classes that may encourage patriotism to be mandatory, hence satisfying supporters on both sides while maintaining my stance.

And that'll do it for now. I maintain the right introduce an additional interpretation of the resolution in the second round should I find such an act to be reasonable and/or necessary.

Ciao.
Johnicle

Con

Thanks and good luck!

I negate, Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

Patriotism defined (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
---"devoted love, support, and defense of one's country"

CONTENTION 1: Freedom to establish your own opinion.
---Since this resolution imposes what should happen, I urge that we create a neutral playing field for the American's and their view upon society, and to their country in general. However, when you offer classes that teach patriotism, it is extremely bias. No matter WHAT, we will teach devotion to the country. This is something that could be fine (like in ethically sound countries), however, these countries could become bad (such as Germany). But if we teach patriotism, we will make it look good even if it is not. This does not achieve teaching students what they ought to learn.

CONTENTION 2: Teach students basic politics and let them decide.
---The problem with patriotism is that it is blind. However, if you teach what makes up love for ones country (perhaps with politics), then you achieve something that is worth being invested in... smart education if you will.

CONTENTION 3: We should not force respect for anything.
---When I did the pledge of allegiance in middle school, there was a kid that did not feel that he wanted to respect something that has done nothing for him. I have another kid in high school now that won't stand because there are no gay marriage rights. Why should we teach love and respect for something that may not be due love and respect?

CONTENTION 4: Waste of money and NCLB focus.
---Given.

CONTENTION 5: Dictatorship countries could force their people to participate in unjust actions.
---Take for example Muslim countries. You have to love your country, because your god deems it so. ‘Now go to war.' They use patriotism as fear to get what they want.

-In the end, patriotism leads to misguided actions with few benefits. Patriotism should be true and honest. Something that is not accomplished if it is taught.

OPPONENTS CASE

C1: If you want to truly teach knowledge, then follow my 2nd contention. Don't teach how to respect one's nation, but teach about one's nation and let people form their own opinion. You ought not force people that may not want to be patriotic... TO be patriotic.

C2: We ought to always try to allow people to establish their own opinion... always. But moreover, if patriotism is to be true and honest, it shouldn't be taught, but it should be established naturally. Finally, patriotism could be used in order to help dictatorship countries to follow their law no matter what (as previously stated).

CROSS-EXAMINATION:

Why is Patriotism inherently good?

Since the resolution applies to countries in general, why should the resolution be done in countries that deserve no love? (Like Germany in WWII, or genocide effected countries, or even Muslim countries of today)

What good comes about from having classes teaching patriotism, over it being developed naturally?

Vote Con!

Thanks and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

RE: CONTENTION 1: Freedom to establish your own opinion.

One thing I find interesting about this contention as well as CON's case entirely is that it makes the common assumption (which is actually the result of most of the controversy on this issue) that patriotism cannot be taught without coercing students to embrace it. This is evident in PRO claiming "no matter what, we will teach devotion to the country." As pointed out in my first contention, this is not necessarily the case, provided patriotism is restricted to exemplary teaching (merely teaching about the revolutionary war would be an example of this). What I'm arguing is that patriotism is taught in a way to where students can see it for what it is and choose whether or not to embrace it. What I'm arguing is that it be restricted to a knowledge basis in the schools (or, if not on a knowledge/exemplary level, allow such teaching be optional) . The point I'm getting at is that one can most certainly have the freedom to establish their own opinion on "patriotism" while learning about patriotism just as one can most certainly establish their own opinion on sex when being taught Sex ED (which doesn't teach kids to go out and have sex, but rather focuses on making them informed enough to reach conclusions in regards to having sex or not).

Of course, my opponent is more than free to tell us why "no matter what, we will teach devotion to the country" assuming he is using "teach" in the context of "coercion." If he doesn't do this, I see no reason for you to even consider taking his contention seriously.

RE: CONTENTION 2: Teach students basic politics and let them decide.

Again, both my opponent and I have a common interest. I agree that patriotism is blind, which is exactly why it shouldn't be forced. At the same time however, I do not condone ignorance of the concept or the history behind it, thus implore teaching it. In any case, as I've pointed out, my position not only lets students decide but gives them ample knowledge and understanding of their decisions.

RE: CONTENTION 3: We should not force respect for anything.

Indeed, the pledge of allegiance is an example of coercion. I do not uphold coercion and am in absolute agreement with my opponent here. Unfortunately, I've established that teaching does not equate to coercion and have restricted the teaching of patriotism down to a level of knowledge (or for an alternative, merely an option). Point being: This argument in no way diminishes my position and is therefore irrelevant.

RE: CONTENTION 4: Waste of money and NCLB focus.

All my opponent states here is that it is a given. Dismiss this contention without hesitation if he has no intention of providing a premise for it.

RE: CONTENTION 5: Dictatorship countries could force their people to participate in unjust actions.

Precisely. Which is why my case should be upheld as students are merely being given knowledge (and knowing about dictatorship countries who take patriotism too far would be a great help in allowing a student to make a decision on what to think of the concept) and are taking up the option to be patriotic should they feel inclined to do so. As I've insisted in my initial round, I'm very much concerned with liberty (especially in regards to choice), hence the nature of my solution.

BACK TO MY CASE:

RE REBUTTALS ON: CONTENTION #1: Knowledge is beneficial

As you can see, my opponent basically reiterated the gist of my first contention. He then points back to his second contention as a reference of what is better, but as we've already established, his second contention is a failure on the basis that it erroneously concludes that teaching equates to coercion as well as the fact that it promotes ignorance.

RE REBUTTALS ON: CONTENTION #2: Patriotic classes could easily be optional

PRO claims that patriotism should not be taught even optionally (which is strange considering that his whole case hinges on the flawed notion that it is bad because it supposedly forces people to act against their will), but that it should be developed honestly and naturally.

First, I'd like PRO to provide a premise for this conclusion as I don't believe I see one. Second, I'd like to refer back to my sex ed example. Let us remember that the purpose of sexual education is to inform students about sex so that they may be able to make intelligent decisions in regards to it (most precisely, when to do it as well as how to insure protection). This is simply because when individuals go about learning "naturally", they typically end up making mistakes that result in STDS or unwanted pregnancies. Here, we should worry about a similar threat. My opponent makes a good point about the evils that have resulted in patriotism taken too far and enabling students to be informed about the matter (most importantly, it's history) should enable them to make better decisions and most certainly not involve themselves in unfavorable activities (such as physically/mentally persecuting those who aren't patriotic or starting "patriotic" groups who severe the purpose of expunging those who are deemed a "threat to the country."

Lastly, PRO repeats himself in insisting that dictatorship countries could force their citizens to follow thier laws no matter what, but if I recall correctly, this argument was based on the flawed premise that teaching is the equivalent to coercing. Here (where I flat out insist that patriotic classes/activities be made optional), that premise cannot possibly apply.

======================
RE: CON's CROSS-EXAMINATION:

Why is Patriotism inherently good?
========================

In response, I'd say that this question assumes that I am of the position that patriotism is inherently good. On the contrary, I have no opinion on whether or not it is good as this is absolutely irrelevant. However, I do uphold the position that being informed about it is inherently good as I've shown in the debate. To pacify my opponent: If one could say that devoted love, support and defense of one's country would be considered the act of being against anything that propagates "evil" into said country, then yes, I'd say that it is why it is inherently good.

To expound on this in accordance to further questioning, I'd say that supporting the evils propagated by Adolf Hitler as well as the Muslim countries is not truly being patriotic as each instances were acts of the country being decayed by evil.

As for the good which comes about from having classes teaching on patriotism, I've covered this both in my first contention as well as recently in my second contention.
=================
My Cross-Examination
================

Question #1: Would you expound on the following: "Since this resolution imposes what should happen, I urge that we create a neutral playing field for the American's and their view upon society, and to their country in general."

Why does "should" trigger this neutral playing field and such? Furthermore, is this making us uphold an unrealistic paradigm of the US? How so? And why is this restricted to America?

Question #2: Since you asked me why patriotism was good, I'd like to know if you think it is good, neutral or evil. I'd also like you to expound on your answer.

And believe it or not, that's all the questioning I see the need to have.

Till next round. :D
Johnicle

Con

Johnicle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

Eh screw it. I don't feel like running a theory argument. Let us proceed with the round.

Judges, please extend all of my arguments across the table and take the forfeit into consideration when making your verdict as it will have most certainly affected the overall performance of this debate. Finally, if CON mentions any arguments which have not in any way been discussed in the previous rounds, you are to dismiss them without hesitation. This would include the arguments which my opponent did not provide premises for or additional responses to arguments which he did not feel the need to make in his first round.

Closing statements: I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "patriotism should be taught to children in school" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following:

1) His entire case makes the assumption that teaching is the equivalent to coercion, but as I've shown, this is by no means true. Teaching is about providing students with knowledge. One can provide a student with knowledge on patriotism without coercing them into being patriotic. THAT is what I'm encouraging and this is BENEFICIAL.

2) Even when countered with a method that CLEARLY makes classes which teach patriotism optional, CON falls back on the erroneous argument that students would be coerced (which makes absolutely no sense if they have a CLEAR BONA-FIDE OPTION).

3) He claimed that knowledge ought to be developed naturally, but never provided a premise for this claim. In addition, most of the examples of problems which he claims were associated with patriotism merely HELPED me in establishing why it should be taught in school (much like Sex ED. Prevent problems by insuring students are informed and can make informed decisions)

These are the three most clear reasons to vote PRO, but you are more than free to vote based on anything else you've seen during the actual round.

Thanks for the debate. VOTE PRO!
Johnicle

Con

I feel I would be taking too great advantage against my opponent if I were to go line by line. I apologize for forfeiting, however, I still win this round for one reason:

Patriotism ignores what is bad. I feel by cross-applying my 5th contention will show precisely why we do should not teach patriotism. As I have iterated prieviously, we should not teach people love for the country, if love for the country is not deserved. And within the context of the resolution, it is not specified if this country is just or not. Therefore, we should not teach patriotism if we do not know if we are teaching something good. Patriotism, in this case, is blind. My opponent argues that we would be able to teach about how dictatorship is bad. But the problem is, that this argument only looks to one country and does not grasp the entire framing of the resolution that clearly specifies all countries including dictatorships. Look to how Sadam Hussein, and even Adolf Hitler used patriotism classes to get their way. You may say that not all countries are bad like that, but Germany was fine, but turned on a dime to pure evil. I therefore ask the judges to take this example and apply it to this resolution. ANY country, even America, can become bad in no time at all... so why should we blindly teach patriotism that will show love no matter what. Rather, we should take my secondary option. Teach basic politics to these students. That way, we could hold our country in check and be free from forced love.

Patriotism = Forced Love = Blind Love = Fake Love = No point at all

Thank you for this debate. And once again I apologize. I'm graduating soon, but yet my work insists on me working 20 hours a week, plus my family is building a new house.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Why is CON ahead in the voting? I happen to personally agree with CON, but PRO did a better job of debating by far.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Consider it meeting each judge's paradigms :D It really is an issue of personal preference based on the types of debates I like to see in competition. I also teach classes at my rural high school (which go over so-so) about being agents of change within their society (sort of kind of social activist, but more like active citizenship). It's just my bag.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
EDIT:
"But of course. I do not ask you to change your personal debate philosophy. On the contrary: I ask you to understand the ideas that question it."

The original was superfluous to the point I was attempting to demonstrate.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"If you would prefer, I could just not vote on any more of your debates. Hence, my "questionable" voting calculus will not be an issue at that point."

Nonsense. You may vote on my debates as you please. I implore you to do so. The job of a debater is to convince his/her audience of his/her arguments, regardless of their thought process. Regardless of how you think, it is my fault if I cannot convince you that I won. At any point at which an opponent of mine uses the approach you recommended to the contender here, I shall not only rebut this argument, but will go about pacifying it and providing an argument that favors such a mindset. If I have the time, I shall simply make such an argument in advance. That is all. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Now your likely response to this would be "Well no, the affirmative debater could argue for patriotism in a way that is refined and superior to the level of what is taught in schools already"(which I technically did do through agreeing with my opponent on the matter of the pledge of allegiance as well as agreeing with his sentiments on how patriotism is taught in other countries, but that is besides the point), however, with the resolution only being that "patriotism should be taught in children in school", in no way would such edits get around the fact that the end result to such arguments is the status quo (merely being that patriotism is ALREADY taught).

"The purpose of a resolution in competitive debate is to propose a change. Otherwise, the debate seems unnecessary in the framework of competitive debate."

I would disagree. As you yourself have stated, LDV debate does not accomplish this. People have many different ideas about what the purpose of competitive debate is, however, what it ultimately comes down to is the ability to convince someone else to embrace an idea as well as to make individuals understand different viewpoints.

"This is my personal debate philosophy, and I have little intention of changing it :) I've also qualified it, and stated that, in this case, it did not weigh heavily in the round. I should've kept my fat trap shut, I suppose."

But of course. I do not ask you to change your personal debate philosophy. On the contrary: I ask you to understand it and the ideas that question it. I don't see this as conflict between the two of us, but a mutual exchange of ideas. Whereas you wish to see debate used as an opportunity for individuals to change the world, I see it used as an opportunity for individuals to understand one another, hence lay out the grounds for peace.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Heh. I wasn't even aware that you responded.

"Debate, in my opinion, should have some sort of purpose."

Debate always has a purpose. In this debate, the purpose (within the realm of the debate itself of course) was merely determining whether or not to uphold or dismiss the resolution. Proving the resolution correct by citing precedent in order to show a positive effect is a means of doing this.

"However, competitive debate also seeks to encourage action."

In terms of whether or not to accept the proposed the topic? Yes.

"Hence, we write our resolutions to propose some sort of quantifiable change."

Okay, here's where our difference in ideas is stemming from. You've clearly admitted that you and others wish for debate to be used in one way (which wouldn't be necessary if this way were already it's purpose), hence write resolutions to the effect where quantifiable change is included. Whether this revolves around getting the US soldiers out of Iraq by 2012 or legalizing the lottery in the state of Alabama, change is always insured for the affirmative's most basic stance. However, the fact of the matter is that you are well aware that patriotism is ALREADY taught in schools. Ergo, no matter how one looks at it, the affirmative debater would be arguing in favor of what already IS. Hence, the status quo is built into the affirmative's position and one cannot dismiss the status quo without dismissing his/her stance entirely
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
As for the second post:

If a debater merely said: "my opponent is affirming the status quo, I win," then no. That wouldn't do it for me. If the debate was a policy debate, and the instigator put the debate in terms of competitive debate in the US (as some do), then I would weigh this argument because both debaters are in agreement that they are following the rules of competitive debate.

If you would prefer, I could just not vote on any more of your debates. Hence, my "questionable" voting calculus will not be an issue at that point.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
1) I did insert the word "anymore," but let me tell you why. My reasoning for not affirming the status quo is thus: we are here to debate. Debate, in my opinion, should have some sort of purpose. I think that, in the competitive debate circuit, we are trying to encourage debate as an action, not an exercise. In other words, debate inherently exercises the mind in some way. How much good it does or how skillful a given debater can be is variable, but debate will always be some sort of mental exercise.

However, competitive debate also seeks to encourage action. Its foundations are to encourage students to think of debate with terminal impacts...in other words, exercising the mind is important to it, but we also want to encourage students to think in terms of changing the world. Obviously, that's a bit grandiose, but we want the purpose to extend beyond the walls of the room in which the debate is occurring, if that makes sense. Hence, we write our resolutions to propose some sort of quantifiable change. That purpose extends beyond policy debate, as well. If you are familiar with specific types, LDV and public, as well as public forum, all seek to do this in different ways. I will concede, however, that LDV is the most likely to affirm the status quo. Please keep in mind that I did originally caveat my argument with "policy only." Those topics really are written so that the affirmative cannot defend the status quo for the reasons stated above. The purpose of a resolution in competitive debate is to propose a change. Otherwise, the debate seems unnecessary in the framework of competitive debate.

2) This is my personal debate philosophy, and I have little intention of changing it :) I've also qualified it, and stated that, in this case, it did not weigh heavily in the round. I should've kept my fat trap shut, I suppose.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"Since I can't assume that this website is, even in part, an encouragement of those philosophies, I can't weigh it heavily in the debate unless the debaters tell me to do so."

What if the other debater argued against this mindset during the debate? Would you take his argument into consideration or would you weigh in the initial debater's plea regardless?
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"First of all, I think the question of whether I can post here or not has little to no value within this context :) "

I beg to differ. It places the term "should to the test."

"However, if that were to be turned into a resolution, let's say, chances are I wouldn't be the one creating it. Hence, it would read "alto2ous should not post regularly on ddo anymore." In order to affirm, whoever instigated would have to be making a change in the status quo."

Your example is specious on the grounds that it makes use of the term anymore (in order to insure that one is discussing change). However, in cases where terms that do not imply change are involved, I see no reason for a debater to have to argue against the status quo.

"Just because I answer questions positively doesn't make it a debate. "

Why does there being a debate make a difference in terms of how "should" ought to be interpreted?

"The instigator, in this case, by even asking the questions of me, is suggesting a change in the status quo if they take it further than simply asking the question."

How is merely asking questions suggesting a change in the status quo?

"I would also like to remind you that I did vote for you :) "

I understand. :D It's just that if I disagree with something, I will more than likelly confront the person who I disagree with . . . regardless of the circumstances.

"Although, the concept is present outside of policy debate in the competitive circuit, as well."

Outside of the policy debate? Huh. In general, I find many of the elements which have been placed into modern formal debate as having no logical basis. I'd like to see the reasoning of the debater or debaters who made this notion so popular.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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 Mars 7 years ago
Mars
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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 Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Logical-MasterJohnicleTied
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