The Instigator
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
MaxHayslip
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points

Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/8/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,765 times Debate No: 3951
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (12)

 

Johnicle

Con

This is a policy debate with Inherency, Harms, Plan, Solvency, Disadvantages, Topicality's, Counter-Plans, and the works. Evidence is necessary to prove points that need it. Since I can't begin without an affirmative case, I will wait for my opponents case before beginning. The topic is the 2008-2009 NFL Policy debate topic:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

Thanks and good luck to my challenger!
MaxHayslip

Pro

Thank you for the opportunity to join you in this debate; currently I am debating this in school.

Contention I:

Problem A: Pollution leads to Global Warming

Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.(1)

A study by the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University found that ignoring global warming would end up costing $20 trillion by 2100. (2)

150,000: Number of people the World Health Organization estimates are killed by climate-change-related issues every year (3)

In April, a group of 11 former U.S. military leaders released a report charging that the war in Somalia during the 1990s stemmed in part from national resource shortages caused by global warming. (4)

Problem B: Dependence on Gasoline

It is no coincidence that so much of the cash filling terrorists' coffers come from the oil monarchies in the Persian Gulf. It is also no coincidence that those countries holding the world's largest oil reserves and those generating most of their income from oil exports, are also those with the strongest support for radical Islam. In fact, oil and terrorism are entangled. If not for the West's oil money, most Gulf states would not have had the wealth that allowed them to invest so much in arms procurement and sponsor terrorists organizations.. But the only way to deal with the problem strategically is to reduce the disposable income and wealth generation capacity of terrorist supporters. Hence, America's best weapon against terrorism is to decrease its dependency on foreign oil by increasing its fuel efficiency and introducing next-generation fuels. Only then financial support for terrorism could radically diminish. (5)

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed,to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns.(6)

Problem C: Peak oil is upon us

We are fast approaching a critical watershed for the fossil-fuel era, with potentially dire consequences for industrial civilization. Experts had been saying that we had another forty or so years of cheap available crude oil left. Now, however, some of the world's leading petroleum geologists are suggesting that global oil production could peak and begin a steep decline much sooner, as early as the second decade of the 21st century. Non-OPEC oil producing countries are already nearing their peak production, leaving most of the remaining reserves in the politically unstable Middle East. Increasing tensions between Islam and the West are likely to further threaten our access to affordable oil. In desperation, the U.S. and other nations could turn to dirtier fossil-fuels – coal, tar sand, and heavy oil – which will only worsen global warming and imperil the earth's already beleaguered ecosystems. Looming oil shortages make industrial life vulnerable to massive disruptions and possibly even collapse. (7)

The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth, undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock Exchanges. The investment community however faces a dilemma. It desires to protect its own fortunes and those of its privileged clients while at the same time is reluctant to take action that might itself trigger the meltdown. It is a closely knit community so that it is hard for one to move without the others becoming aware of his actions.
In this situation, interest shifts to commodities and to short term trading to benefit from daily or hourly fluctuations in price, implying that there are few valid genuine long-term investments left.
The scene is set for the Second Great Depression. (8)

Contention II: Currently the government is not going far enough to encourage alternative energy

Mandate: A 7% tax break would go to businesses switching to Jatropha bean alternative energy

Logistics: Recycle Government Waste

Intent: "We reserve the right to explain what we mean"

Contention III: Our plan would increase alternative energy use, halt
Global warming, and reduce the risk of nuclear annihilation.

Biofuels can slash global warming pollution. By 2050, biofuels could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year. That's equal to more than 80 percent of current transportation-related emissions.(9)

Producing a cheap and reliable alternative to oil will be lucrative business, but industry needs encouragement to develop technologies that are also sustainable and environmentally sound. The government can spur the development along through strategic investments and incentive programs. (10)

Jatropha Statistics (11):

Jatropha is seen by many to be the perfect biodiesel crop. It can be grown in very poor soils actually generating top soil as it goes, is drought and pest resilient, and it has seeds with up to 40% oil content.
- Jatropha grows well on low fertility soils
- Jatropha can be intercropped with many cash crops such as coffee, sugar, fruits and vegetables with the Jatropha offering both fertilizer and protection against livestock.
- Jatropha can survive three years of drought by dropping its leaves.
- Jatropha is excellent at preventing soil erosion, and the leaves it drops act as a wonderful soil enriching mulch.
- The cost of 1000 jatropha saplings (enough for one acre) in Pakistan is around 5000PKR (equiv to around �50 or just 5p each).
- 80% of seedlings planted will survive.
- Jatropha seedlings yield seeds in the first year after plantation.
- After the first five years, the typical annual yield of a jatropha tree is 3.5kg of beans.
- Jatropha trees are productive for up to 30-40 years.
- 2,200 trees can be planted per hectare (approx 1,000 per acre).
- 1 hectare should yield around 7 tonnes of seeds per year.
- 91%+ of the oil can be extracted with cold pressing.
- 1 hectare should yield around 2.2-2.7 tonnes of oil.
- Filtered jatropha oil can be used as is in many diesel vehicles

I still have info to put in! I'm starting to hate the 8,000 character limit!

Yet again, I'd like to thank my opponent for the chance to debate him, and I wish him the best of luck in his rebuttal.

Citation:
(1)National Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org...
(2) Mic Check; Harvey Christy
(3) Washington Post; Struck Doug, writer for the Washington Post, 2006
(4) Washington Post; Eilperin, Juliet, writer for the Washington Post, 2006
(5) Korin, 02( Co-Director of the Institute for the Analysis for Global Security, http://www.iags.org..., 2002)
(6)Alexander 03(Yonah, Washington Times, August 28, LN)
(7)Jeremy Rifkin, noted thinker and futurist, President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, 04/28/06, http://premierespeakers.com...
(8)Colin Campbell "The financial consequences of peak oil." 2007
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net... Consequences.html
(9)National Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org...
(10)National Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org...
(11)RUEK.com, 08 (RENEWABLE ENERGY UK)
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Con

GENERIC ARGUMENTS:

1) Global warming doesn't exist.
-From: http://www.americanpolicy.org...
-"There is no global warming. Period. You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us." There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming. Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius."
--> In the 1970's, scientists were worried about global freezing. The earth is in a change… that is all. If we have any affect on the climate it is VERY slight and does NOT kill 150,000 people. In other words, he solves for NO inherency harms in solvency.

2) The theory of global warming doesn't cause harm even if it exists.
During the David Letterman show, David had one of the highest workers for global warming. He claimed that over the past century, the earth has grown (in average) of 1 degree. Then my opponent claims that there has been an estimate of 150,000 people that are killed by global warming. This argument is ridiculous. There is no link and no justification as to HOW this happens. Furthermore, in solvency, there is no proof that this harm will be solved so this argument must be thrown out of this round immediately.

Therefore, Affirmative has no inherency or solvency.

TOPICALITIES:

All from dictionary.com

A. Energy
-"any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation."
This is more for clarification of how this turns into energy. I reserve the right to expand on this topicality or just drop it altogether.

B. Substantial
"of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc"
My opponents plan states that there will be a 7% tax break for farmers that grow this bean. But the standard of if this will be substantial is not met. If my opponent can not link to a substantial increase, then there must be a negative vote.

PLAN STANDARD:

A. Mandate standard: The affirmative must prove that farmers are willing to cooperate with alternative energy OR that these 7% tax breaks is enough to make it so that they earn enough money to support a family. ALL farmers like to stick to familiarity and aren't interested in risking their farm and family for something that won't support them very much. Therefore,

STANDARD 1: Affirmative must prove that the 7% tax break is enough to persuade farmers to switch to growing jathropa beans.

STANDARD 2: Affirmative must show that with or without the tax break, that there is enough money in this new field.

STANDARD 3: Affirmative must show that with the 7% tax break, that there will be a substantial increase of energy.

B. Logistics: The affirmative plan can not be changed. Logistics offers nothing that will be done to make jatropha beans popular in any way.

STANDARD: Affirmative must show that the 7% tax break will create enough alternative energy that is worth investing in.

SOLVENCY STANDARD:

DISADVANTAGE 1: Funding Disadvantage

A. Link: If the farmers grow a substantial amount, then farmers will decrease substantially in the form of normal crops.

B. Link: Substantial decrease in money income.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com...
-"Net income for the first quarter of 2008 was $1.724 million"
-This was just from one corporation. Therefore if this tax break is so great, then everyone will switch to growing these beans then crops and money will be substantially decreased.

C. Harm 1: More people will starve

D. Harm 2: Substantial increase in food prices (they are already high enough)

E. Harm 3: Loss in money for exporting goods.

I reserve the right to add more arguments in the next speech (consider it my 2nd constructive) since I didn't have enough time to argue some of what I wanted to…

Thanks and good luck!
MaxHayslip

Pro

Generic Arguments:

1)Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level . Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature. The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]�C 1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]◦C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1). The temperature increase is widespread over the globe, and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2} Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1} Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. {1.1} From 1900 to 2005, precipitation increased significantly in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia but declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, with limited evidence of increases elsewhere. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. It is difficult to ascertain longer term trends in cyclone activity, particularly prior to 1970. Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. {1.1 Observational evidence4 from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases. Changes in snow, ice and frozen ground have with high confidence increased the number and size of glacial lakes, increased ground instability in mountain and other permafrost regions, and led to changes in some Arctic and Antarctic ecosystems. There is high confidence that some hydrological systems have also been affected through increased runoff and earlier spring peak discharge in many glacier- and snow-fed rivers, and of the more than 29,000 observational data series, from 75 studies, that show significant change in many physical and biological systems, more than 89% are consistent with the direction of change expected as a response to warming . (1)
You have failed to provide any evidence to my 150,000 deaths a year; so I will back it up with evidence.

"Climate change already is claiming more than 150,000 lives each year, with causes ranging from heat waves to respiratory illness, WHO concluded last year." (2)

2)The problem does exist:

Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating: the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.(3)

The problem would be solved:
By 2050, biofuels -- especially cellulosic biofuels -- could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year. That's equal to more than 80 percent of current transportation-related emissions.(4)

Topicalities:

A.Definition of Alternative Energy: energy, as solar, wind, or nuclear energy, that can replace or supplement traditional fossil-fuel sources, as coal, oil, and natural gas. (5)

This shows that although Alternative Energy can include the sources that you said, the true definition is energy that can replace traditional fossil-fuel sources.

B.(Haha, one of the changes I made to my case was changing 7% to "Minimally Sufficient up to 20%)
You said that I would give a tax break to farmers growing the bean, but I stated that the tax break would go to businesses switching to Jatropha bean alternative energy.

Your plan standard is irrelevant to the case because it is on the basis of incentives to farmers when the true incentives go to businesses.

B. Logistics: the planning, implementation, and coordination of the details of a business or other operation. (6)
My logistics pertains to the way that the mandate would be planned.

Funding Disadvantage:

A. The Jatropha bean can be implemented with cash crops ("Normal Crops") and it will actually make the soil better increasing the output.
Jatropha is seen by many to be the perfect biodiesel crop. It can be grown in very poor soils actually generating top soil as it goes, is drought and pest resilient, and it has seeds with up to 40% oil content.
- Jatropha grows well on low fertility soils
- Jatropha can be intercropped with many cash crops such as coffee, sugar, fruits and vegetables with the Jatropha offering both fertilizer and protection against livestock.
- Jatropha can survive three years of drought by dropping its leaves.
- Jatropha is excellent at preventing soil erosion, and the leaves it drops act as a wonderful soil enriching mulch.
- The cost of 1000 jatropha saplings in Pakistan is around 5000PKR (equiv to around �50 or just 5p each).(7)

B.
The endorsement of Jatropha has tended to be a big money venture. That has not been undertaken on a larger scale. Jatropha is more of pure fuel crop, though the oil can serve certain other applications. (8)

C-E: No evidence.

I would also like to mention that you dropped my Oil Dependence and Peak Oil problems. You speak that there is a potential decrease in American exporting (leading to an economic decline) although this is not the case, Jatropha would increase economicic stability due to increased food output (Read through Jatropha statistics).

Oil dependence shows that with our continued use of Oil we are supporting terrorist organizations in the Middle East (And those organizations have revolutionized warfare). If we continue to funnel money into terrorist organizations through Oil dependence we are destroying possibilty of stability (Military stability, Economic stability, and Political Stability).

Peak oil also shows that without biodiversity we will have an economic decline with the impact of extinction. We cannot stand idly by as we leave chances of the destruction of civilization itself.

In conclusion, if Aff's plan is not followed, the destruction of civilization ensues.

(1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, November 16, 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch...
(2) Washington Post; Struck Doug, writer for the Washington Post, 2006
(3) National Resources Defense Council, 07 http://www.nrdc.org..., p.1
(4) National Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org...
(5) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(6) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(7)RUEK.com, 08 (RENEWABLE ENERGY UK)
(8) WAFB 07 (Dan Sweeney, staff writer, JUICE: Alternate Fuels World, "The World Agricultural Forum's Biofuels Initiative", 04/06/2007, http://www.alternatefuelsworld.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Con

COUNTERPLAN

A. Status Quo harm: Gas prices are at an average of above $3.50 per gallon (common-knowledge)

B. Shipping cost increase leads to increase in all prices (common-knowledge)

C. Alaska contains mass amounts of oil.
-From- http://www.american.edu...
-"According to three government studies since 1980, anywhere from 1.69 to 14.77 billion barrels of recoverable oil may be located at the protected ANWR."

Therefore, I offer the following (counter) plan,

D. The U.S. will initiate drilling into Alaska.

E. The U.S. will decrease the amount of oil prices as much as possible.

F. The cost for a gallon of gasoline will be paid for until it is under $2.00 (before being sold to gas stations).

G. Alternatives to gasoline will be discovered by path of the status quo.

-I reserve the right to provide evidence for any questions negative may have.

The counter plan is mutually exclusive because of the following topicality:

A. Should- (dictionary.com) Used to express obligation or duty

B. (explanation): The topicality is not necessarily meant to show that the affirmative is non-topical but rather to show how the government will not be able to hold up the money to offer the 7% tax break AND offer $2.00 per gallon pay offs. We SHOULD find one solution and stick to it. 9 trillion dollars in debt is too much and by supporting both plans, the debt would be unnecessarily increased. We SHOULD only do one of them.

I reserve the right to fiat, clarification, and legislative intent.

Paragraph by paragraph:

Global Warming impact:

1) Cross-apply evidence from round 2, this proves that the uncertainty is still up in the air. It is not definite that global warming exists.

2) Further evidence: "The attempts of environmentalists to bolster the myth of human-induced global warming is downright immoral." Philip Stott, Professor of Biogeography, University of London
3) Further evidence: "Global Warming Lies was created because when you do an internet search on global warming 99% of what you find is how the Earth is doomed and we are all going to drown from global warming. This isn't the case, in fact most climatologists will tell you differently. Global Warming Lies is an attempt to break down the science into everyday language, provide facts, use logic and common sense instead of the "You're going to die" method." (from: http://www.globalwarminglies.com...)
---> This website also shows a graph that shows the 20th century as NOT the highest average temperatures.

4) I've heard scientists say that "It's the warmest it has been in a century"… but obviously the average has to change sometime. In the 70's, people were worried about global freezing.

5) Lies about global warming are various. There are 2 major entities here, Al Gore and the media. Al Gore: Made a video about global warming but in fact, that video has several lies. One of which they took a clip of a polar bear on a little piece of ice, they claimed that that polar bear was like that because of global warming but in fact, that clip was from a video about how polar bears like to be on small pieces of ice covered by water. Furthermore, Mr. Gore has a HUGE airplane that pollutes loads AND owns one of the most polluting plants in the world… Nobel Piece Prize… HAHA. The media, on the other hand, has the exact same incentive… money. The media makes stories that sell and since people like hearing about (bogus) theories that COULD end the world, they will run them. The media is the biggest reason that this has been made TOO big of a deal. If one person that is respected begins to believe in any theory that could cause a lot of harm, then the media will believe it and run the story. If you think about it, it makes loads of sense.

6) (my most important argument)… even if global warming DOES exist (which it obviously doesn't), his plan won't solve any of its problems. From the same website as above, "Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars."… You'd have to see that if you were to solve the "harm" of global warming, just stopping gasoline cars wouldn't be enough. He has NO inherency, NO harms, and NO solvency.

2--> The next argument talks about the changes of earth's temperatures. This is exactly what happens, going to the site above (same site), you will see that the data was false and that the 20th century is NOT the highest average temperature ever. You have to see that there is a "fastest" increase sometimes and just because it might be now doesn't mean that we caused it (and not by our cars).

I've already proven that the problem would not be solved.

Topicalities:

A. I am still interested in how this "energy" could be used… for what? It has never been specified.

B. There is no link as of THIS ROUND that proves that solvency will be a SUBSTANTIAL increase and he is therefore non-topical.

PLAN STANDARD: He has yet to show that businesses are interested in the growing of this crop. The standard not being PROVEN means that there is no increase (let alone a substantial increase).

I'm going to offer one more topicality… United States (2nd one)

I'll use the common knowledge definition…

There must be an increase in the UNITED STATES… PROVE that there will be an increase in the UNITED STATES… My opponent offers a lot of good things about these

Funding DA

A/B. Cross-Apply farmers to businesses. With the businesses making this "change", it will be an even greater funding DA

C-E: Common-knowledge… less people making stuff will lead to less stuff…

From here, I would like to point out that Affirmative never chose between not having a substantial increase OR having a substantial increase but then having a substantial decrease in the production of everything else. It is one or the other because there is no way to determine the perfect amount.

With all of this, you have to see that Affirmative has no case and therefore vote negative (con).

Thanks!
MaxHayslip

Pro

MaxHayslip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Con

The last round being forfeited is extremely disappointing. I would have loved to have seen this debate to the end (while all speeches being filled) but none the less I will summarize the round.

1) Counter-plan flowed through
-->It was completely dropped.

2) Funding DA compared to substantial Topicality
-->The most arguments to be flowed through are the substantial T and Funding DA... Either A) It will be substantial and the funding DA will lead to all of the harms listed or B) It won't be substantial and Affirmative would therefore be non-topical. I asked my opponent to pick one but he has failed to do so.

3) Energy Topicality
Affirmative has yet to show HOW this energy could be used. At least I don't see it.

4) Global Warming
It does not exist. If you flow through my last speech when I talked about them, you will see that each of the 6 arguments take out the Inherency Harms. Therefore, he has no Inherency, Harms, OR Solvency. In other words, every single stock issue is flowed in favor of Negative (CON)...

In the end of this round I am left with uncertainty about Jatropha beans. There just isn't enough reason to break status quo substantially without harming the current balance of money. It solves for nothing. It just isn't worth the risk of a complete economy crash. As far as the information presented in this round, you must vote Negative (CON).

Thank you!
MaxHayslip

Pro

MaxHayslip forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
Sorry, I've been really tied down in exams.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
well........ this debate is not as much as I want it to be... time is of value but come summer there will hopefully be a lot more in depth debates!
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
oh... and btw, this is only my 3rd round of policy EVER and I only am doing this for fun... however, I would be extremely interested in the D.A.'s and Counterplans if you have them... Facebook- Luke Cumbee or I'll add you first if I can...
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
I can help you fix your affirmative, I seek to help those in need. My school actually happens to have one of the best debate teams in the nation (Mountain Brook High School).
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
ok... sounds like fun if we switch sides but I think that I'm going to fix my affirmative a lot... and the end of the year is coming so time is becoming valuable. I'm pusing to get this speech done right now.
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
Johnicle, how about the same topic but switching sides after this debate is over?

I guarentee it would help you strengthen your case, I have quite a strong Negative.
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
I've recently made more changes to this, wish i could have added them!
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
Yeah, my Facebook is my username (Max Hayslip)
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I would be highly highly interested in any information you have. Could you invite me as a friend on the facebook page?
Posted by Hayslip 8 years ago
Hayslip
Sorry, this is an alternate account, I decided to take up a debate but didn't want it to hurt my w/l record.

Um, Contention II = Inherency.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 iluvthesouth424 7 years ago
iluvthesouth424
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 LandonWalsh 8 years ago
LandonWalsh
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 Teddy_Bear 8 years ago
Teddy_Bear
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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 Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
JohnicleMaxHayslipTied
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