The Instigator
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
SportsGuru
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Resolved: The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer.

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  
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: 3/8/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,299 times Debate No: 3137
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (10)

 

Pluto2493

Pro

I believe AVGN is better than the Irate Gamer. I define 'better' as- 'of superior quality.' I will seek to explain why AVGN is better than Irate by looking at a few areas of analysis.

1. Irate is not better because he simply copies the AVGN. The Irate Gamer joined Youtube 8 months after AVGN, and built his channel and videos exactly like the AVGN. They review several of the same games, each one of which AVGN reviewed first. Irate even goes as far as to copy exact dialogue from AVGN in 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' and 'Back to the Future.'

2. Angry Video Game Nerd is much more funny than Irate. His rants are funnier, he has more clever dialogue, and he uses clever settings to add to the comedy. Not really much to explain here, if you just watch both reviewers, you can clearly see that AVGN is much more funny than Irate.

3. AVGN fits his character better. Rants should be about BAD games, but Irate reviews good games like Contra and Tetris. A lot of Irate's jokes seem somewhat forced, while AVGN sounds like he's just talking to you about this game. He also gets a lot angrier. He wears a white shirt, glasses, and a pocket protecter. So, he's Angrier, Reviews Video Games, and is a nerd.

I thank you for accepting this debate and I look forward to your response.
SportsGuru

Con

First, I thank my opponent for creating this debate and ask that the voters vote on who did the better debating rather than which side you agree with.

With that out of the way, I accept my opponent's definition of better and will advocate "The Angry Video Game Nerd is PERHAPS better than the Irate Gamer." As my opponent declares absolute certainty, this still conflicts with the resolution my opponent has created and fulfills my burden of refutation. Consequently, my opponent must prove with conclusive evidence that "The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer" in order to fulfill his burden of proof.

My opponent's first and third arguments state "Irate is not better because he simply copies the AVGN." and "AVGN fits his character better" respectively. From the description of the two given by my opponent, they have the same character- a stereotypical geek/nerd who reviews games. As the definition of copy is "to make a copy or duplicate of" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and they both have the same character, it is impossible for one to copy the other and one to fit their character better if they both have the same character. Until my opponent shows which is right and which is not, both of these must be ignored.

My opponent's second point states that AVGN is funnier and urges you to watch both and compare. However, it is not your job but my opponent's job to show which is funnier with conclusive evidence. Until, my opponent does this, he fails on his burden of proof for this point and thus this point must be ignored.

I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Pluto2493

Pro

It's seems as though my opponent has lost the essence of this debate. He is attacking little grammatical errors, and not focusing on the core of this debate topic. I would like the voters to vote on who won the overall arguments, and forget about these little grammatical mistakes.

1. <>

This argument is completly vague and does not really prove anything. How does this conflict with the rest of the resolution? How does it fulfill YOUR burden of refutation? With my definition, I seek to prove that overall, the AVGN is of greater quality the Irate gamer as per three areas of analysis. That absolutley does not prove anything to your case.

2. <>

Again, this type of arguementation is completly unfair and abusive. My opponent can just take any word and twist it around on me to make me look bad. Do not allow this to take place.

That being said, let's take a look at this.

Fine, Irate is not better because he simply TRIES TO copy the AVGN. Is that better? Honestly, is this really attacking my arguments? Anyway, my point was that they bare stricking similarities, and Irate should not be recognized for that. Obviously, they are not the same person, but the core of their shows are built off the same idea. This is not a contradiction, because, although their characters are similar, AVGN captures that character better. Also, my opponent fails to mention the point in my first argument:
Let's say, by some chance, AVGN and Irate are the EXACT SAME. The only differences are: The names; and that AVGN came first. Still, AVGN would be better. Why? He came first. People do not like copies, so they are more likely to go to the original, ever proving my point that Irate should not be recognized for copying.

3. <>

First, most people that vote on this debate have seen both shows, and I'm sure they agree with me.
But yes, there is a burden of proof, but I have proven that.

"His rants are funnier, he has more clever dialogue, and he uses clever settings to add to the comedy."

I said these three things that are never mentioned by Con. I have proved this, and until he argues this, you must vote for my side. Also, here is more burden of proof:

The Angry Video Game Nerd's take on BTTF, added July 29, 2006:
http://youtube.com...

And the Irate Gamer's, added April 28, 2007:
http://youtube.com...

First the similarities:
The glass window,
the inaccuracy of objects in the game,
the weird placed time clock,
the never ending scenery,
skateboard really doesn't help,
the black vest,
background music loop,
and the hard milkshake level.

Also, the AVGN gets much more angry. It feels like the Irate is forcing jokes. AVGN's are much more subtle. Plus, the AVGN uses video dialogue from the movie that fits perfectly to enhance the mood.

Offense- my opponent never directly attacks my arguments. He never says the Irate doesn't copy, nor does he say that's bad, nor that Irate fits is character better or even that he is funnier. With that being said, you face no choice in voting pro.

Seeing as how my points were never directly answered, there is no need to restate or defend them. So cross-apply my arguments from round one.

Thank you.
SportsGuru

Con

There have been misunderstandings between what each of us has interpreted from each other's arguments. I hope to clear these up while showing how Pro has not fulfilled his burden while I have fulfilled mine.

My opponent first claims that I am going off topic and attacking grammatical mistakes. To address the claim of me attacking grammatical mistakes, I urge you to read my first round argument. Nowhere do I have an attack that involves a bad use of grammar on my opponent's part. If you do not feel like reading the argument, simple press "Ctrl + F" and search for the words "grammar, grammatical, mistake". You will find none of these words in my first round argument. Thus, my opponent's claim is wrong.

To stay on topic, I simply need to negate my opponent's arguments and thus the resolution. As that is all that I did in my previous argument, I did not go off topic.

My opponent then questions what I am advocating calling it "vague" and claiming it does not fulfill my burden of refutation. To fulfill my burden of refutation, I simply need to negate my opponents arguments and the resolution. Please note that to fulfill my burden, I do not need to negate the WHOLE resolution. So, while advocating the polar opposite of the resolution is acceptable and probably the most common attack of choice, it is not the only suitable one. Here is my opponent's resolution "Resolved: The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer". It states that the AVGN is beyond a doubt better than the IG. I am conflicting with the fact that it is certain that AVGN is better than the IG. I advocate that while it might be true, it is not certain. My opponent thus needs to prove with conclusive evidence that it is certain that AVGN is better than the IG. I do not know how much clearer I can make it. I also add that while my opponent is free to use the areas of analysis that he has given, these certainly are not the only one allowed in the debate.

Moving on, the quote my opponent gives simply states that from context clues and the names of the AVGN and the IG that they have the same basic character. If this was misinterpreted as a personal attack against my opponent, I am sorry. It was not meant that way. Vague pronouns can do that. If the AVGN and the IG have a different basic character, please correct me so we can be on the same page about the subjects we are debating.

My opponent then says in the next paragraph that he meant that the IG tries to copy rather than does copy. Fine by me, but I can only attack what I see. We both have the burden of saying exactly what we mean. With that aside, I urge you to look at my opponent's first sentence of the aforementioned first paragraph "Fine, Irate is not better because he simply TRIES TO copy the AVGN". Notice how he says that the fact IG tries to copy only supports that Irate Gamer is not better than AVGN. As this is not what my opponent must advocate in order to fulfill his burden of proof and is off-topic, anything concerning IG's copying must be ignored.

My opponent then suggests that this quote ("His rants are funnier, he has more clever dialogue, and he uses clever settings to add to the comedy.") fulfills his burden of proof. Unfortunately, baseless conjectures do not count as evidence. To counter your statement I contend that his (AVGN) rants are not funnier, he does not have more clever dialogue, and he does not use clever settings to add to the comedy." Until my opponent can bring empirical evidence to prove his conjectures, they have been successfully contended and must be ignored.

My opponent then gives two links to videos and lists the similarities. As, I have already shown that any arguments dealing with similarities/copying should be ignored, this should also be ignored.

Although I will analyze my opponent's next statements, I challenge him to find evidence to support his statements (ex. Evidence that AVGN gets much more angry). Otherwise, these are baseless conjectures and must be ignored.

"Also, the AVGN gets much more angry"

Until my opponent shows how this makes AVGN better, this is irrelevant.

"It feels like the Irate is forcing jokes. AVGN's are much more subtle."

I contend that this makes IG better as he lets those who are not smart enough to get subtle jokes to be humored.

"Plus, the AVGN uses video dialogue from the movie that fits perfectly to enhance the mood."

This simply means that IG is so good he does not need the video dialogue.

As I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments, fulfilled my burden, and showed how my opponent has not fulfilled his, I am done for this round and await my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
Pluto2493

Pro

First I'd like to extend my offense before I respond to my opponent-
1. My opponent's debate style is taking away from the true essence of this website. If you vote for him not because he attacked what I am saying, but rather little things like the use of the word 'copy,' it will be completly unfair to the PRO side; he could just point out any word in my argument and turn it around on me and call it an argument. Do not vote for CON simply because I use human dialogue. It is extremely abusive to argue this way.

2. Do not recognize Irate because he tries to copy. AVGN is the original and is funny, but if Irate or someone else tries to copy, AVGN is still better because he is the original.

3. AVGN is COMPLETLY funnier than IG. I have fulfilled my burden of proof in the second round, although it was hazy in the first round. I have provided you with evidence AND analysis as to why AVGN is funnier, plus you can decide for yourself thanks to my youtubes.

4. AVGN fits his character better. His jokes are more subtle and can be enjoyed by everyone. He gets a lot angrier, which is what an angry critic SHOULD do.

Now line-by-line:

1. <>

First, just because you don't say 'grammatical mistake,' you can still point out a grammatical mistake. E.G. 'You spelt scissors wrong.' That does not say grammar.
Furthermore, pointing out that I used the word 'copy' wrong is a grammatical mistake. Also contending 'AVGN might be better than IG' is a grammatical error because I stated 'AVGN is better than IG.'

2. <>

I did say it was vague, but my main contention was not 'It does not fill the burden,' it was that it was a sneaky and abusive way to argue. That kind of arguementation would allow my opponent to take any word in my argument and twist it around on me.

3. <>

This arguement can be thrown out right now. I have provided the two videos, I proved the similarities of these videos, I said why AVGN should be recognized because he is original, I said AVGN is more subtle with jokes, I said he uses better effects, I said he gets angrier, etc. etc. etc. If that isn't enough arguments and analysis to vote for PRO, I don't know what is.

I know what my opponent is getting at, but I have fulfilled my burden of proof with arguments. Although stats, figures and sources are helpful to me, my analysis must be argued. Unless he answers these arguments, you must vote PRO.

4. <>

I'm gonna be honest, I have know idea what he is talking about here, haha. Ummmmm.... yeah.

5. <>

There he goes again. C'mon judges, we all know what I was getting at. If that was not clear, I apologize, but that should not be an argument; it should be something that is cleared up or asked to me in the comment box. Do not vote on this copy issue, I cleared it up in the second round, and my opponent never says things like 'copying is good' or 'IG does not copy.' My arguement still stands, and is the most solid in the round.

6. <<"Fine, Irate is not better because he simply TRIES TO copy the AVGN". Notice how he says that the fact IG tries to copy only supports that Irate Gamer is not better than AVGN. As this is not what my opponent must advocate in order to fulfill his burden of proof and is off-topic, anything concerning IG's copying must be ignored.>>

This is completly on topic. It's simple- AVGN is the original so is better. As I have said before, the original is always better because he thinks of his own material and presents it in his own style. AVGN should be recognized for this.

7. <>

That could be a good argument, but how far will he take that? Think about it, if I said China is bad for the US, he could say that. I'd say, China is competing in the US in the global market. He could say, why is that bad? I'd say, the US economy could crumble. He'd say, why is that bad? I'd say, people would be put out of jobs (etc, etc. etc.)
In other words, there reaches a certain point where that can not be argued, and I have reached that. I said 'AVGN is better. AVGN is better because he fits his character better. He fits his character better because he gets angrier.'
See, that effectivley portrays my point with a sub-point, when the overall point IS a sub-point. (If you get that)
Moving on...

8. <>

This IS evidence. It's the same thing as an article or a card. I give you the video so you can watch it, but I also explain with my own reasoning as to why AVGN is better.

9. <>

Bahhhh... c'mon. Subtle jokes are always better. Also, you don't have to be 'smart' to think a joke is funny. It's not a big hurrah and pomp and circumstance when AVGN makes a joke. Because of this, it's eaiser to watch AVGN because it really feels like he's telling you about a game and is a funny guy, rather than an unfunny comedian.

10. <>

Ummm... what? Special effects enhance the mood. Sometimes it feels like I'm watching a video game parody movie rather than watching an internet video. They get you in the mood of the game he is reviewing, which makes you get more into the video.

Thank you for viewing this debate, and I ask for your vote. Congratulations to my opponent for a good debate.
SportsGuru

Con

Before I begin my argument, I have an announcement to make. I admit that I have a habit of finding arguments to use that deal with semantics. Although I am aware that there are people that do not like this style, that is not a valid reason to vote me down. Con is free to negate Pro's arguments anyway Con chooses, whether that be the typical "AVGN is better…IG is better…" debate or the style I chose. As long as I negate, my opponent's points, I have done my job.

My opponent's offense:

1.My opponent first claims that my debate style takes away from the essence of this website and uses my attacks concerning "copy" as validation. First, since this is a debate website, I fail to see how a debate style takes away from a this website. Moreover, I did not attack the use of the word copy. In fact, the only mention of it you will find in my first argument the definition of copy and showing how my opponent contradicts himself. I did not twist the definition nor did I attack his use of the word copy but simply took what he said as it was. How else am I supposed to take it? I cannot read my opponent's mind and know what they actually meant. My opponent then calls my style abusive because supposedly lets me twist his words. My opponent is essentially calling definitions abusive because that is all I used to show how he contradicted himself. This cannot be considered as definitions are used in many other debates on and off this website. Thus, concerning this is void and should be ignored.

2.My opponent says to not recognize Irate because he tries to copy. However, if you look at the topic, you will see that my opponent is advocating "The Angry Video Game Nerd is better than the Irate Gamer" not whether Irate should be recognized. As such, this is off topic and should be ignored.

3.My opponent says that AVGN is funnier and says that he has analysis and evidence. Please notice that throughout the whole debate my opponent has said only one phrase concerning the "funnyness" of the two shows ("His rants are funnier, he has more clever dialogue, and he uses clever settings to add to the comedy.") and he posted two videos. First, I will begin with the phrase. The definition of evidence according to dictionary.com is "data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Note: here the "jury" is the voters thus meaning that the definition applies to this situation. As my opponents phrase does not include data, it is not evidence. In fact, it is just a baseless conjecture with nothing to back it up. As such, it cannot be considered valid in a debate and must be ignored. The videos also do not fit the definition of evidence and as they are simply videos of the two shows are not analysis. Thus, they must also be considered invalid.

4.My opponent once again fails on his burden of proof. He provides nothing to back up that his jokes are more subtle nor does he provide enough video evidence that overall AVGN gets a lot angrier. As such, these are baseless conjectures and must be ignored.

As you can see, my opponent essentially has no offense and must lose because of this as without offense he cannot advocate what he must advocate.

Going on:

"First, just because..."

That may be, but reading my arguments show no attack on your use of grammar. I have already shown how my usage of the definition of the word copy is not an attack on his usage of it. What I am advocating is not pointing out a grammatical mistake, as you did not make a grammatical mistake. I just simply changed the resolution to what I am advocating to make it clear and avoid confusion,

"I did say it was vague..."

Notice that if you look in my opponent's second round attack on what I am advocating, you will see that he indeed questions, "How does it fulfill YOUR burden of refutation?" and nowhere does he call what I am advocating sneaky or abusive. Moreover, as I have already stated, it is a completely legal and non-abusive stance for me to take as I am refuting the resolution. Moreover, my stance does not allow me to twist my opponent's words. Indeed, my opponent does not show how it does allow me to do this.

"This arguement can be thrown out right now. I have provided..."

However, I have also proven all of that offense invalid meaning that it in fact is not enough. Moreover, even if these were to all stand it does not prove that AVGN is better BEYOND A DOUBT which is what my opponent is advocating.

"I know what my opponent is getting at..."

However, you have not substantiated those arguments with anything but baseless conjectures. It has been shown that you have no analysis whatsoever and those "stats, figures, and sources" are what is needed to substantiate your arguments. Thus you have no arguments and all votes must go to Con.

"I'm gonna be honest, I have know idea what he is talking about here, haha. Ummmmm.... yeah"

Sorry, was a misunderstanding on my part.

"5. <>

There he goes again..."

That's the thing. We did NOT all know what you were getting at. There was nothing that suggested that I should ask something concerning that in the comment's box so I did not. This is not an argument but rather my defending of why I attacked it the way I did. Moreover, I do not have to do the direct polar opposite to negate and argument. I just simply need to show that it is in valid, which I have done.

"6. <<"Fine, Irate is not better because he simply TRIES TO copy the AVGN". Notice how he says that the fact IG tries to copy only supports that Irate Gamer is not better than AVGN. As this is not what my opponent must advocate in order to fulfill his burden of proof and is off-topic, anything concerning IG's copying must be ignored.>>

This is completly on topic..."

This is NOT on topic because it is not what you are advocating. "AVGN is better than IG" is not the same as "IG is not better than AVGN" as the latter allows them to be equal and the statement still be true. Thus, it is off topic. Moreover, since your definition of better is "of higher quality", being the original is not always better as time of release does not affect quality. Thus, the order in which they came in must not be a factor.

"That could be a good argument..."

That is why there are statistics, data etc. My point was that you need evidence to back up your statements. Thus, your analogy with the China is flawed and null. Without evidence, one idea is not better than the other. For example, take "AVGN gets angrier". Although you said that, I can simply say "AVGN does not get angrier" and your statement would be refuted. Thus, lack of evidence makes your arguments invalid.

"This IS evidence..."

However, I have already shown that what you used the video to support should be ignored meaning that the video should be ignored. Moreover, I have already shown that the video is not evidence.

"Bahhhh... c'mon. Subtle..."

My opponent says that subtle jokes are better. However, as utilitarianism overrules my opponent's opinion, all of this is invalid.

"Ummm... what? Special..."

Yes, but this is only related to the quality of the special effects not the subject. So, this is invalid.

So, I ask you to vote for Con as I have fulfilled my burden of refutation while my opponent as no valid arguments and fails on his burden.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Although it is certainly not required, I would appreciate if the voters posted why they voted the way they did.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Thank you. Nice debate yourself.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
yeah I don't like that character limit... I had to scroll up to see what I said about everything haha.

PS nice debate.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Sorry about all the ellipsis. Urg. Why must there be an 8,000 character limit.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
yah I guess so haha (25 characters)
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Pluto: "There's also a lot of swearing, though."

Rob: "What do you mean "though"... that's the best part!"

That guy flipping out and swearing up a storm is what's so funny.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
what are you talking about Rob?
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
What do you mean "though"... that's the best part!
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
Go to youtube and search JamesNintendoNerd. He's like the 10th most subscribed person on youtube. He reviews retro games. It's a comedy. There's also a lot of swearing, though.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I don't have a clue what this is talking about lol...
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: It was close but imo con won it. I do like AVGN better but the pro didn't give the best arguement for him.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Lakeville votebomb
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 5 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 9 years ago
Corycogley77479
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
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 Gao 9 years ago
Gao
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
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 WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by panicman123 9 years ago
panicman123
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
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 ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
Pluto2493SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03