The Instigator
Justinisthecrazy
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Nails
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,222 times Debate No: 9535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (11)

 

Justinisthecrazy

Con

Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection.

I will go Con. The Affirmative may present its case in the rest of round 1 and I will then lay out my case round 2

Then the affirmative can atttack/build their case in round 2

I will build my case/attack their case in round 3

Then can then attack my case and pretty much its the last rebuttals/conclusions so no new data
Nails

Pro

Sorry about not having this argument up yesterday like I said I would. I accidentally deleted the entirety of what I had written and had to start over.

The ultimate goal of both poverty reduction and environmental protection is the welfare of people. Both poverty and poor environment make life worse overall for the people they affect.

First, the environment fixes itself while poverty entrenches itself.

The environment in general has the ability to 'bounce back'. For countless years the earth has been plagued by natural disasters, plagues, droughts, people, etc. After all of this, the environment comes out fine. Nature adapts rather well to attacks on it and survives.
On the other hand, poverty tends to create more poverty. Entire continents like Africa fell behind the rest of the community and from there look how they've ended up. Most minority communities in the United States came here with very little money. 100 and 200 years later, look where they've ended up. Poor neighborhoods and ghettos are filled disproportionately with minorities. What example can you give of a society where poverty just worked itself out? There are none. Therefore we can come to the conclusion that; when in conflict we ought to prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection because it is a more urgent need and will compound more quickly if not fixed.

Second, much of modern environmental protection is at the expense of people.

Two recent example I've heard of are these:
3 people died fighting a forest fire in California. They didn't have enough water to adequately squelch the fire because of restrictions on using a nearby river in order to save a certain species of fish.
Also, we have the more recent and publicized issue of the farmers versus the smelt. Water supply to multiple farms has been cut off in order to protect a species of fish of relatively little importance.
It is too often that 'protecting the environment' ends up hurting people. Therefore we can come to the conclusion that; when in conflict we ought to prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection because, while poverty reduction will always be to the benefit of people, protection of the environment can sometimes lead to our harm. In these cases, people are being valued below animals, which is, for obvious reasons, bad.

Third, global poverty reduction can easily lead to environmental protection.

Subsistence farmers in Brazil cut back the Amazon Rain Forest to make farm land.
Poor Africans kill elephants for their valuable tusks.
Native tribesmen of both the African and South American rainforests cut down valuable trees like teak and mahogany.
Poor children burn electronics releasing toxic chemicals into the air in order to gather the precious metals inside.

They do all these things for the same reasons. They have to feed themselves and their families. Every one of these groups of people mentioned is among the poorest on our planet. These environmental atrocities are commited not out of hatred, but out of desparation. If we provide relief to those in poverty, we can avoid this destruction of the environment. However, if we maintain some strict standards on environmental control, these people are going to be subjected to malnourishment and starvation because we will have taken away their only way to live. Therefore we can come to the conclusion that; when in conflict we ought to prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection because putting environmental protection first will lead to more global poverty, while valuing poverty reduction can lead to environmental gains.
Debate Round No. 1
Justinisthecrazy

Con

UN: knock knock
Myanmar Junta: Who�€™s there?
UN: It�€™s the United Nations
Junta: who?
Un: this is the United Nations we need to talk!
Junta: Oh Yea �€" you�€™re the guy who tried to sell us democracy and human rights last year �€" I�€™m sorry we don�€™t accept solicitors on a Monday.
I stand in Negation of the Resolution
Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection.
Definitions:
Poverty: a certain level of material deprivation below, which an individual suffers physically, emotionally, and socially
Environment: the area in which something exists or lives
United Nations �€" An international organization committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security

Contention 1) The United Nations is Corrupt

The United Nations as constituted is profoundly corrupt. In a world filled with war-mongering dictators and suppressing regimes who know that the UN lacks any real power, regimes are almost completely free to do whatever they want. It is funded by the lavish UN bureaucracies that are rank with bribery and bid rigging. The UN supported Saddam's regime by allowing oil-for-food money to be channeled away from the people to the government of Iraq. The United Nations is structured in a way that allows non-democratic nations to block advancement of the interests of democratic nations. It does things like elect Libya, "One of the world's worst abusers of human rights" to chair its Human Rights Commission. It cannot even pass a resolution condemning genocide in Darfur or Zimbabwe, let alone do anything about it. The UN is overwhelmingly a podium for authoritarian nations seeking to suppress human rights and keep dictators in power.

Contention 2) The UN is a joke
The United Nations is unable to take direct and independent actions without support from its members. In other words, the UN is completely powerless and pacifistic. For example the UN has five nations with veto powers. These veto powers give these five nations the ability to disagree with anything that does not help them. This fails for many reasons. One is a true democracy among nations is unbiased and fair. Thus the structure of the Un needs a major overhaul. This too is not likely to happen since the countries with vetoing powers are unlikely to unanimously agree to give up there right to veto for fairness sake. As stated previously the United Nations has proven itself as a failure for its entire history and will continue being useless. Maybe if peaceful countries withdraw their membership and stop participating in the UN as a protest it will force it to adopt new methods and stop dealing with non-peaceful and non-humanitarian nations.

Contention 3) Environmental degradation causes poverty and should be the first priority
Poverty is increasingly caused by environmental scarcities. Awareness and concern about environmental degradation has grown around the world over the last few decades, and are currently shared by people of different nations. The poor feel the negative impacts of environmental degradation. The poor often rely on natural resources to meet their basic needs through agricultural production and gathering resources essential for household maintenance, such as water, firewood and wild plants for consumption and medicine. Thus the depletion and contamination of water sources directly threaten the livelihoods of those who depend on them.

Contention 4) Main purpose of the UN
The United Nations provides a place for the countries of the world to do two things. First and most important it allows countries a neutral means of communication. This is important because most conflicts that don't involve fighting over things can be resolved if both sides sit down and talk it out. Second the United Nations is in a basic sense is a world government. That being said the amount of power the UN can exert on a sovereign nation is basically up to that nation, however, the UN is a place where treaties can be agreed upon, such as human rights issues, or pollution control. To avoid country's from going to war . The United Nations (UN) generally works towards world solutions to avoid more serious problems and to work toward the world getting along better. In other words, the UN tries to achieve world peace.

Conclusion
Thus I negate the resolution on the fact that the UN is a joke, it is corrupt and it is not the United Nations responsibility to fight poverty or environmental crisis. Also I negate the resolution When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection because environmental degradation causes poverty.
Nails

Pro

His first contention is that the United Nations is corrupt.

1. His only evidence suggesting this are these examples that these things still happen. Ofcourse there will always be problems. We can't make the world perfect. The fact that it doesn't do enough has no clear link to that it is 'overwhelmingly a podium for authoritarian nations seeking to suppress human rights and keep dictators in power.' The United States supports and works in conjunction with the UN on peacekeeping missions and diplomatic missions across the globe. Obviously the general concensus is that they can atleast do something and that they aren't corrupt. To prove otherwise, he's going to need more than 1 or 2 examples that are barely related to the issue he adresses.

2. Stopping these crimes against human rights is not even one that the United Nations is required to do in the first place. We have an International Criminal Court (ICC) for that, which works in conjunction with the UN, specifically designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, for example the ones he uses in his examples. I can give examples of my own of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and even his own example of Darfur, Sudan, where the ICC has already stepped in and intervened. This is the opposite of corruption, all of these leaders who have actually committed crimes against humanity are either fugitives or in ICC custody.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Even if for some reason you didn't buy the first two arguments, this is irrelevant. Regardless of what the current situation is now, the argument is over what they SHOULD do. If they are doing good, then they should keep doing what they are doing. If they are doing harm, they should change. Whether or not they are or aren't currently doing good or bad, corrupt or otherwise is irrelevant to what they SHOULD do and what is best overall. This isn't a reason why they SHOULDN'T do good by prioritizing poverty reduction so it is totally irrelevant.

This entire point is just completely absurd. He tries to back up a baseless claim with example that don't even really support what he is saying, misinterprets what the UN actually needs to do, and isn't even arguing on the topic of what we should or shouldn't do i.e. the resolution.

*Knock Knock*
"Who's there?"
"United Nations"
That's not funny. Obviously the United Nations is not a joke, his second contention.

1. This veto ability is part of a fair system of checks and balances that prevents the corruption that he claims in his 1st point. It is exactly what he was arguing for. It prevents human rights abuses and the 'power of the majority'. For example, in strict democracy, if the rest of the world agreed to enslave US citizens, according to democracy, they could. It's in the majority interests. There need to be checks and balances on this 'majority vote' system to prevent these abuses which is exactly what this system does.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. There is no reason that this would ever make a decision on poverty reduction or environmental protection impossible. The ability to 'veto' is given only to 5 of the top world powers, all respected nations and all nations who deserve to have a major say in the global community. There is no reason why we can't trust these other nations, as logical human beings, not to agree to allow us to make the morally right action regarding poverty reduction. My opponent never gives a reason why they would ever abuse this veto power or even have a reason to abuse this veto power, so this claim is completely unwarranted.

3. Same argument as above. What the United Nations currently does has little to no bearing on what it should do. You can refer to the 3rd point against his 1st contention for this argument as well. This has no bearing at all on what should be done so it is irrelevant. This is a logical fallacy of 'It is; therefore, it ought to be' or in this case 'It isn't; therefore, it ought not be'. The two are not related.

Contention 3 of his case:

1. Doesn't even support his case. This shows that we should make a decision based on the reduction of poverty. This would make poverty the priority, thus proving my side of this case.

2. His only real example, which he reasons is 'good' proves my case. We prioritize poverty reduction in his example by allowing the poor access to water, firewood, plants, etc. This puts poverty reduction before the environment, because
a. In this example the environment is harmed. Trees can be cut down and plants can be killed.
b. Poverty reduction is benefitted. We fulfill the needs of these people in poverty through use of the environment.
This is a scenario that he implies is good (he says it is bad that water polution etc. makes this scenario no longer possible) and this scenario at the very base of his example for reasons a and b obviously puts poverty before the environment.

3. Look to my last contention. It is basically the contradiction of this and presented in a logically correct format. Under his arguments, the ultimate ends he achieves in this example is poor people being able to use resources (poverty reduction; a vote for me) while in my case I argue that valuing poverty reduction has other benefits besides just reduction of poverty, while environmental protection has unintended harms. The major difference is on how the decision is ultimately made, and in his example as well as my contention, the decision boils down to helping the poor, my stance in this case.

Contention 4

1. I shouldn't even need to adress this because he contradicts himself. He tries to argue that the UNs job is simply to achieve world peace, but then he talks about, in the center of the paragraph, how the UN can form treaties on human rights and pollution control. He also says it is basically a world government. A government's only obligation is not simply to promote peace nor is it to implement pollution control. He has atleast 3 different definitions of the 'main purpose of the UN' all of which are logically contradictory to each other.

2. The UN doesn't simply promote world peace. The first one is the official UN site. Obviously not exclusive to 'world peace.'
http://www.un.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. This isn't even a point for his case. Find anywhere in this contention where he remotely makes the link to the resolution. The contention itself is 'Main Purpose of the UN' and he seems to imply that that is simply world peace. He doesn't give any justification or even explain why that matters in the context of the debate. This entire contention is useless to him aswell.

Summary: His contentions are all based on flawed logic and distorted facts and they don't even prove his side of the argument. None of them contain within them any reason to vote for him even if he could prove them true. He has no case at all. Mine is the only one in this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Justinisthecrazy

Con

First I shall extend my case. I concede my points about the U N being a joke and corrupt 1) because they are not important and were just used to get the aff to go on a tangent and not extend his case. 2) they really have nothing to do with case.

My definitions stand because they were unrefuted and the affirmative failed to provide them/

My Contention 3 is where I shall start as it is most vital to the resolution. Environmental Degradation leads to poverty is the main point of my case. This is because it is one of the sole causes of poverty and death. According tn AFP article air pollution in Iran's capital of Tehran killed 3,600 people in one month. A new study determined that unseen and odorless, microscopic particles of air pollution wafting overseas and across continents kill 380,000 people each year. Once again I am going to talk about Darfur. The conflict in Darfur has greatly accelerated the processes of environmental degradation that have been undermining subsistence livelihoods in the area over recent decades. The debate over Darfur illustrates a huge conflict. The lowest neighboring tribes and villages displaying a difference in livelihood as resources become scarcer and scarcer. Traditional rules of environmental management have been thrown away and weakened causing more poverty and more death. A study done last year shows the death due to the ozone layer had researcher 2.7 million across the country every year.That is a lot of people that could be saved if we focused on the environmental protection. 29,000 children die every single day because of environmental degradation. What that means is these deaths are avoidable if we could focus and save the environment. Thus environmental degregation causes povety and death, through a negative vote you save lifes and help to end poverty at the same time.

I want to go to my 4th contention. The real purpose of United nations is to bring all nations of the world to work together for peace and development, based on the principles of justice, human dignity and the well-being of people. These means they are trying to keep peace throughout the world. Develop friendly relationships between nations. and work together to help people better their lives and to stop environmental destruction. That is taken directly from the UN charter. Notice how nothing is said about poverty? Well, that is simply because poverty is preventable through saving the environment from degradation.

I will now go to my opponents case.

His first contention about the environment fixes itself while poverty entrenches itself is completely dropped. Therefore, I urge that you strike it from the flow.

His second contention about the modern environmental protection is at the expense of the people. I am sorry but this was also stricken from the flow as it was not extended. However, I could see as to where one could almost see if they looked hard enough that he did extend it. So to be safe I shall answer it as concisely as possible.

In the Nov. 8 Lancet, the Lancet, The

British medical journal established in 1823, published weekly from New York and London. Its founder and first editor, Thomas Wakley, considered at the time a radical reformer, stated that the intent of the new journal was to report on hospital lectures and

In the Nov 8 the Lancet, the working group predicts that "700,000 avoidable deaths will occur annually" from particulate exposures by 2020 "under the business-as-usual forecasts, when compared with the climate-policy scenario." The cumulative impact between 2000 and 2020 of not adopting sharp climate protection policies could be some 8 million premature deaths, most of them in developing countries. This is important notice how those 8 million deaths are AVOIDABLE by using environmental protection. Thus we can conclude that environmental protection is not at the expense of the people unless you want to be dead. If that be the case then by all means vote affirmative.

His refutation on my contention 3 is inadequate. He states that my conention supports poverty reduction and he is absolutely correct but not quite the way he says. Through my contention 3 of protecting the environment we limit poverty. When the environment is harmed it causes death and poverty as shown above. My opponents basis that poverty reduction becomes the priority with this contention is false. It is false because we are focusing on the environmental aspect and by doing so we are able to overcome poverty at the same time. Thus urging a negative ballot.

Now seeing as I still have characters left we shall again extend my 3rd contention. That is environmental degradation causes poverty. Both environmental degradation and poverty alleviation are urgent global issues that have a lot in common, but are often treated separately. Consider the following. Human activities are resulting in mass species extinction rates higher than ever before, currently approaching 1000 times the normal rate. Human-induced climate change is threatening an even bleaker future. Nepal and Bangladesh have suffered from various environmental problems such as increasingly devastating floods, often believed to be resulting from large-scale deforestation. Nepal is the poorest country in South Asia and ranks as the twelfth poorest country in the world.Bangladesh belongs to the poorest group of countries in the world.The World Bank's World Development Indicators puts Bangladesh in 170th place (out of 207 countries) in the global ranking. Thus we can see the link from environmental degradation to poverty.Therefore if we save the environment we save the people from poverty.

I urge a negative ballot on the resolution

Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection

Because the affirmative did not extend two arguments. The affirmative attacked the weaker parts of my case that did not matter to the resolution.

The main reason to vote for the negative saves lives and stops poverty as well as saving the environment. Thank you, and happy voting
Nails

Pro

Since this is the last speech, I will try to keep all of my arguments strictly to reasons why to vote for me. I will be giving 5 specific voting issues that will justify an affirmative vote. I'll win all five arguments, but in reality, you could just find the one you most agree with and read the impact. Winning any one of these will easily justify a win for me, and I'll certainly explain how.

ONE: My opponent is abusive
Debate is:
1. Competitive
2. Educational

1. Competition
My opponent throws out multiple straw man arguments with no purpose except to waste my character space. By the time I have given good responses to these pointless arguments, I don't have enough character space left to address the real points of his case. If you subscribe to this win-at-all-costs logic, debate becomes simply throwing more arguments out there and extending whichever one(s) the opponent couldn't cover. This takes the competitive value out of debate because it becomes a race to the bottom. The less evidence you provide, the more arguments you can fit in, so the more you win. This means there is no intellectual competition going on, and winning the debate equates to nothing because all you prove is that you could put more arguments out there.
2. Education
His strawman UN-is-evil arguments take a topic that is supposed to educate us on the debate of poverty over the environment, and center it on whether the UN is corrupt. He admits that his UN points are obviously incorrect, so debating them has no educational value anyway.

Next, we have this issue of evidence. Read his original third contention. It is poorly put together, has no warrant, and is the shortest of his four contentions. There really wasn't anything there for me to rebut except his poorly put together logic. Then in his last speech, he gives evidence to support his claim (with no links at all to back it up!), giving me only a single speech to respond. By doing this, I don't have time to have a full debate on this issue. These arguments will never be able to be fully developed and debated like they would be if he made them in his original speech, so there is a significant educational loss here because of his underhanded tactics.

IMPACT: Regardless of whether or not he wins that the environment supersedes poverty (he won't), he is doing it in an unfair way that is harmful to debate and abusive to me. He can never justify a vote in his favor by using underhanded tactics, because if we were to conform to his tactics, there would be no real debate going on at all.

TWO: His 4th Contention, Purpose of the UN
He argues in both speeches that the United Nations is only going to do what it was designed to do. I TOTALLY AGREE. Now look at the warrants on both sides. I give you two links showing that the UN clearly makes efforts to reduce poverty. He gives absolutely no examples of the UN prioritizing the environment.

IMPACT: Read his definition of UN, read his 4th contention and the place he re-extends it. He clearly proves that the UN isn't going to act outside of its game plan. I prove that the UN does help the poor, he doesn't prove that the UN helps the environment, so by HIS OWN LOGIC I win this debate because my side is the only one the United Nations could feasibly enact.

THREE: His third contention
Look at my first rebuttal where I turned his third his 3rd contention into a reason to vote for me. What is so awesome is that he helps me by strengthening his original claim with more evidence, without ever addressing the turn I put on it proving it is a reason to vote for me. You have a contention, ironclad with his own evidence, that conclusively proves that environmental protection is a vehicle we can use to reach the goal of helping the poor. His contention says this; rebuttal says this. He never denies it. His only offensive argument in this case values protection of the poor as the ultimate goal and only looks to protecting the environment as a means to reach that goal. This is clearly prioritization of my side of the resolution, because his justification of his methods as good is that the help the poor.

IMPACT:
1. You have a plan of action, given by my opponent and not me, that the United Nations should take. Throughout the entirety of his case, his justification of this contention is that it will lead to helping the poor. I pointed out the fact that this means he is prioritizing poverty reduction as the ultimate goal. HE NEVER ADDRESSED THIS. Therefore, he concedes that his only relevant contention is in actuality a reason to vote for me.
2. This was the only argument that he ever claimed was a reason to vote for him. I've disproved this so there's no reason he has left to win him a vote.
---
My final two points are my first two contentions. He makes the argument that you can drop them because they weren't 'extended' by me. Think about what he is saying:

He didn't make a rebuttal of any sort on these contentions, and none of his contentions remotely clashed with my first two. There was nothing that he ever said that would make my first contentions untrue, so there was no reason I needed to waste space rejustifying arguments you could already accept as true.

If what he was looking for was some confirmation that I was still using my case as a means to win the round and not doing some underhanded burden-shift like he was, then you can look to, for example, the very last sentences in my rebuttal where I say "He has no case at all. Mine is the only one in this round." I explicitly put forth the idea that my case was the only case that held any weight as a reason to vote, so I fulfilled my obligation in 'extending' it. There was nothing further I needed to do to prove it true because he never came remotely close to rebutting it in his first speech.

FOUR: My First Contention
He never gives any intelligible reason anywhere in any of his speeches why my first contention isn't true. I'll simply restate it, so you don't have to scroll back up and reread.
Poverty is a vicious cycle. Those in poverty are dug further into poverty, I gave examples.
The environment is a virtuous cycle. Even when beaten and battered, it comes back as good as new. I gave examples.
If you had two debts (say, for example, $1,000 each) and you needed to decide which to pay off, would you pay off the one that increased by $100 dollars every year, or the one that decreased by $100 dollars every year.

IMPACT: It's simple logic and something he never disproved. The fact that he doesn't address this means he concedes it as true. We choose poverty reduction because it is urgent and compounding. It's as simple as that.

FIVE: My second contention
He simply gives one example (with no reference to site) as a completely rebuttal of this point. I still win this point because:
1. I have numerous examples (you can apply the ones in my C3 also) from across the globe with clear links and impacts. He has one.
2. He doesn't show how his solution would ever fix poverty in the slightest, so it doesn't refute to my point.
3. He doesn't address the logical arguments I make about the necessities of the poor superseding the environment.

IMPACT: This one is obvious. I proved his side harms people and my side helps people. I disproved his rebuttal, so you can vote for me on the basis that my side is the clearly superior choice for humanity.

Summary,
ONE: He is cheating and ruining debate
TWO: His own definition and C4 prove my case is the only feasible one.
THREE: He drops the argument that his only 'true' contention actually proves that you should vote for me.
FOUR: He drops the argument that my side ought to be prioritized because it is urgent and compounding.
FIVE: My side is the only one that benefits humans. His harms them. He couldn't disprove this.

Like I said, any of these 5 is reason alone to vote for me.
Side Note: I'm the only person with links to any evidence at all.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I know Wiki isn't great, but Wikipedia > no links. I don't think I used Wikipedia to prove anything critical to my case, either.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Haha. I'm just a 2nd year LDer. I was afraid I was doing PF wrong.
Posted by k00r34n 7 years ago
k00r34n
You both were good.
However Nails, your source was Wiki a lot...
That's source unless from wiki it extends to other sources...

Nails you were very opinionated instead of statistical
I voted tie cause both of you had good arguments and ALOT better than me in pf then i am :D
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Read my last argument. I spend about 2500 characters IIRC talking about it.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
fair but really arguing about it here in the comments doesnt change the debate
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I know there aren't 'rules' against it, and I didn't say there were.

Of course, by that same "anything goes" logic, I am able to argue that while your strategy may be legal, it is unfair and harmful to debate, so the reason for voting against your strategy isn't because it violates some predetermined rule.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
its a debate anything goes whether you choos to focus on things that dont matter is not my problem. It's a very used strategy i do in Ld

I hit a subpoint very powerfully so they focus on that as my main point and then i hit my main point and win because they focus on the unimportance
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Very interesting strategy. I didn't see that coming at all. I do find that kind of cheap, though.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
must say this was fun
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I began writing my previous comment before you posted 'ahh after reading...in there'.
It was in response to your first comment, not the second. You can ignore it.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 7 years ago
thejudgeisgod
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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 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 deadlysmurfed1 7 years ago
deadlysmurfed1
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by k00r34n 7 years ago
k00r34n
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by elzharb 7 years ago
elzharb
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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 Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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 Chihuahuadogz 7 years ago
Chihuahuadogz
JustinisthecrazyNailsTied
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