The Instigator
vonschumann10
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
mattresses
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

Ron Paul is the best candidate for President in 2008

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: 1/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,396 times Debate No: 1625
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (15)

 

vonschumann10

Pro

More so than any other candidate in either party, Ron Paul has diagnosed and formulated the policy changes that can save America from the decline we seem destined for. No other candidate has come to the realization that our foreign policy, not religion, is at the heart of the motives of Islamic terrorists, and that we are going bankrupt trying to finance our overseas empire, with the dollar rapidly depreciating in value. Dr. Paul is a true conservative, unlike the others running in the Republican party, who understands and promotes the concepts of small government, sound money, a humble foreign policy, and freedom. With regards to foreign policy, only Ron Paul seems to understand that decades of self serving, arrogant actions in the Middle East and elsewhere are the primary causes of Islamic terrorism against America. To assume that American foreign policy is blameless in this situation is utterly ignorant and bullheaded. In physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and the interactions between humans are hardly any different. Terrorists attack America not because we are rich, prosperous, enjoy a higher level of individual freedom than they, or for the simple fact that we are predominantly Christian, but for the simple fact that America has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East since the 1950's. Examples of this are numerable and undeniable, and I will gladly list them if my opponent asks it of me. Terrorist attacks such as that of 9/11 are what the CIA terms blowback, or unintended consequences of foreign involvement. If we, as Americans, desire to be free of the threat of Islamic terrorism, staying in Iraq and continuing to attempt to 'hunt down' the terrorists, or stay on offense, is entirely counterproductive to the goal. They despise us because we have been on offense, in a sense, for six decades, and their numbers will only mulitply as we step up our efforts in the region. Alone out of all the candidates, only Paul seems to understand this. On Economic issues, Dr.Paul's knowledge is far more advanced and insightful than that of any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Paul realizes that we are going bankrupt trying to finance our interventionist foreign policy, and that the incessant printing of money by the government to attempt to pay the bills is driving costs out the roof (a good example of this being healthcare). To prevent this sort of irresponsible printing of money, the only real solution is a return to the gold standard, as Paul emphasizes. Our current national debt is over 8 trillion dollars, made so by the ignorance of neo conservative leaders, who slash taxes yet do not curtail spending. As president, Paul would drastically cut the spending of the federal government as well as slash taxes for ALL Americans, not just a particular class of people, and only Paul truly respects the facets of our Constitution.
mattresses

Con

First, I will concede that I agree that Ron Paul is correct on many issues and is obviously the best candidate among the Republican party. He acknowledges the truth when it comes to Islamic terrorists, the economy, and several other major issues, and he often has legitimate plans to correct issues. I am in almost total agreement with his foreign policies as well as many of his economic polices. In reality, I have no debate with the content of your statement, but rather with the topic of the debate. Ron Paul is not the best candidate for President. The reasons are as follows:

1. Ron Paul wants to repeal all bans and measures restricting citizen from obtaining firearms, as well as easing the procedures on purchase and registration of firearms. This means that any law-abiding U.S. citizen could purchase anything from a .38 snub up to a fully automatic AK-47. In addition, Paul wants to make it legal for citizens to carry concealed, legally acquired firearms.

2. While Ron Paul supports withdrawing from the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, NAFTA, and CAFTA, which are mainly tools for international corporations to expand into countries where they can pay workers 10 cents an hour and charge the same price to their consumers, Ron Paul also supports withdrawing from the UN. The United States definitely should focus more upon its national interests, but isolating itself from the rest of the world community will not provide the type of national image that this country desperately needs at this point in time. Paul even takes this isolationist position as far as to say we should ignore the legal slavery of black Christians in Sudan. While I support the non-intervention foreign policy, it is also important to acknowledge extreme loss of human rights in other countries, and act accordingly through the United Nations.

3. Ron Paul holds the position that no goods or services imported or exported to or from the U.S. should be inhibited in any way. Also that the United States should not be held accountable for its trade positions. This deregulation could lead to consequences as disastrous as the recent lead filled Chinese imports did for China. Not only would these policies allow for more situations like this to happen on imports to the U.S., but it would allow for these situations to occur on exports from the U.S. as well, with no accountability to the government. This would weaken our international image even further.

4. Paul claims universal health care will not work, and claims that the current health care system is not working. His solution? Abolish all medicare plans and similar acts and leave it up to each individual state. This is not suggesting a solution, it is proposing that each state decide which of the two options it would rather try and work out on its own. Paul's conservative small government ideals are refreshing, but a plan for health care is badly needed. He voted no on the SCHIP bill, and if he has no viable alternative to universal health care, I see no reason why he should be elected. The health care crisis in this country is enormous.

5. To use a nice sounding clich´┐Ż... last but not least: Ron Paul does not support energy independence or pushing towards cleaner energy. He voted no on implementing the Kyoto Protocol, voted no on prohibiting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, voted no on raising CAFE standards in 2001 (fleet-wide average of 27.5 mpg by 2007), voted yes for the scheduling of new oil refineries in 2006, voted no on keeping the 25 year moratorium on off-shore oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, and finally he voted no on removing Big Oil subsidies on Jan. 18, 2007--despite claiming that the Big Oil subsidies should be removed just 6 months later at a GOP debate at Saint Anselm College.

I feel that these are five of the largest issues with Ron Paul's policies, growing worse as you further down the list. This is why Ron Paul is NOT the best candidate for president in 2008. I personally believe Dennis Kucinich, who happens to be friends with Ron Paul, is the best candidate. He holds a similar non-intervention foreign policy, but he also recognizes the need to deal with the world community. He also wishes to withdraw from many of the corporate-run world organizations at the same time. Kucinich, in my opinion is by far the best candidate of them all. However, I realize that he has almost no chance of winning even one state in the primary, and as a result we must find a balance between the slew of normal candidates and the radicalism of Paul and Kucinich. I find that Edwards holds many of the same foreign policy ideals in terms of the aggravation of the Middle East, while at the same time promoting dealing with the world community. Edwards is further right of Kucinich, which makes him a slightly more unifying figure. I won't go into a lot of detail about either of them however, as I feel it is more important to spread knowledge of ALL of Ron Paul's policies.

It is important to know which issues are important both nationally, as well as globally. The United States can't function if it continues to consider itself the most important country in the world.
Debate Round No. 1
vonschumann10

Pro

Admittedly, I was sort of looking forward to running into a Neo-conservative opponent who I could beat over the head about foreign policy and true fiscal conservatism. Instead, you seem to be more of a moderate, and I must admit that I do not agree with Dr. Paul on ALL of his points, that is, I believe that an utterly laissez fair capitalist society has its drawbacks, a few of which you pointed out. For instance, if any and all government intervention in the economy with respect to the quality of goods, human rights, etc, would most likely lead to the sort of state America enjoyed (or at least the big tycoons did), around the turn of the century. However, I absolutely agree with Paul that the government interferes far too much with the free market, and in the process has actually facilitated a number of things it intended to stop. It is from this point that I must refute the notion of Socialized Medicine, or Universal Health Care. While I greatly respect Denis Kucinich, and realize that he and Paul both have a similar understanding of foreign policy, I whole-heartedly disagree with the notion that Universal Healthcare is the solution to the current crisis. The problem is really twofold. First and most evident, I feel, is that the high prices are actually driven by government intervention into Health Care with the whole idea of 'managed care.' All this has done is hinder true free market capitalism, and channel the power and authority over health decisions away from doctors and their patients to big, subsidized insurance companies. If the government would get out of the way, true competition would naturally result prices being driven down, and a very American concept of choice in health care. While Universal Health Care might very well be better than the current state of managed care, it has a number of drawbacks, first and foremost being that it strips the authority away from the individual and places it in the hands of the central government. I do not think the founders had anything like that in mind. Despite its problems, the current state of health care has one prime advantage over its socialized counterparts in the Old World: The lowest waiting time to see a doctor and by far the best specialists. I am an avid follower of European football, and I know that quite frequently, footballers in need of special surgery come to America. I, for one, refuse to give up my freedom of choice and pay higher taxes so that my health plan can be decided by a bunch of bureaucrats. That is NOT, what we need. The free market can and will work if it is only truly allowed to. Indeed, prices for healthcare have only skyrocketed since the government stuck it's nose into the business. The second part of the problem, which I feel only Paul does an adequate job of expressing, is the effect runaway inflation of the dollar has had on the cost of health care, amongst other things. None of the other candidates has as excellent a grip on economics as Ron Paul, not even Kucinich, and he is the only one who realizes that the cost of maintaining our empire and printing and printing all this money to try and meet it has driven prices up. Moving on to foreign policy, I take issue with your point about Paul's isolationist policies. Ron Paul is not by any means an 'isolationist'. Isolationism entails a complete lack of regard for the outside world, coupled with high protective tariffs and the lot. Just because Paul is a NON INTERVENTIONIST, does not mean he is an isolationist, as there is a clear difference between the two. While rallying against foreign intervention and foreign aid, Paul absolutely endorses trading and speaking with other nations diplomatically. Watch some of his debate clips, thats almost a direct quote. Originally, my biggest concern with Paul's stances on the issues was the one revolving around Energy and drilling in North America. As you pointed out, he did vote to allow drilling in the Wildlife Reserve in Alaska. I'm a bit of a conservationist myself, who hates to see more and more precious woodlands and farmlands being gobbled up by greedy developers with their ugly two toned houses here in the suburbs of Philadelphia, but upon further research into his positions, I realized that Paul actually has it right. I do not feel that it is really necessary for the federal government to become overly involved with regulating drilling, pollution, etc, and not just because it does not have the constitutional authority to do so, but because it does not really have to. If we simply strictly observe property rights, polluters can be hit very hard, as they have to pollute somewhere, and chances are it will affect someone's personal property in a negative manner, right? Also, it is not the duty or the right of the federal government to mandate that auto makers produce their cars to a certain standard of fuel efficiency. It should be up to the American people to stop purchasing gas guzzling SUV's and drive more efficient compact cars (as i do). We do not need the government to hold our hand...if the people simply wake up and remove the demand for SUV's and big trucks the companies will no longer produce them. As for drilling in North America, if we really want to achieve energy independence, it is currently sadly necessary. Face it. We are not very close to achieving reliance on a viable means of alternative energy, so in the time being, if we want to successfully distance ourselves from the temptation of an interventionist foreign policy centering around the protection of oil reserves abroad, the most logical solution is frankly to drill for some here...and there are vast quantities of oil, but nearly 80% is illegal to drill for. Let the free market work, which also entails the cessation of subsidies to the Big Oil companies. I find it odd that he voted for that once, btw, but I take him at his word now that he wishes to discontinue that funding. To speak in more general terms, I believe that despite the concerns you raised, Paul's positives outweigh them, even when stacked against Kucinich, who, while respectful of the Constitution, Civil Liberties, and understanding of foreign policy, is, after all a Democrat. I'm not saying that there is something wrong with Democrats, indeed I generally prefer them to neo con Republicans, but Kucinich's proposal for Universal Health Care entails a necessary hike in both taxes and government spending, neither of which we need. Taxes should be cut, as Paul believes, dramatically and for all socio-economic classes, and, after all, should not the earner of a dollar be the prime decider of what to do with it? If taxes were curtailed enough, would not private health care be made more affordable? Coupled with a return to the gold standard, government withdrawal from managed care which hinders the free market, lower taxes would solve the health care problem. Oh, and I nearly forgot about the UN. Paul is correct in saying that the UN undermines American sovereignty, as well as that of all the nations who are members. Decisions that effect the American people must not be left to an unelected world body, no matter how well intended the body is in nature. All too often, the prime purpose of the UN is to intervene, meddle, and sanction, all of which have negative backlash. I feel genuinely sorry that slavery still exists, but what on earth can we do about it? It is for the people of Sudan to resolve, not America or the UN. Besides, withdrawal form the UN merely entails a withdrawal from a formalized diplomatic body, not a cessation of diplomacy with other nations. We'd just have more control over it.
mattresses

Con

First of all, you should try separating your posts into paragraphs as it would make them easier to read. Now onward...

I will concede my point about Paul's isolationist policies. I was unintentionally spinning the data, as he is not truly isolationist. However, he does take non-intervention a bit too far. The UN does not undermine United States authority. We entered Iraq without their permission, we often ignore any requests made by the World Court... Our participation in the UN is already lackluster and half-assed. The UN was not put in place to dictate what countries can and cannot do within their territory, but rather so that the world could come to a consensus easily. Where would we be without the UN? Would there be a Kyoto Protocol? Who knows? If the United States were to withdraw from the United Nations, the only effect it would have would be to remove our already negative voice from mostly positive proceedings.

On the other hand, I take extreme issue with your statements about Sudan. What can we do about it? We can submit aid through the United Nations. The simple presence of troops would prevent the mass killings and slave raids that occur in the country. The belief that we cannot do anything to help the citizens in another country is incorrect. And we don't even have to invade them! Sure, one could argue that Sudan should be able to overthrow the dictatorial power themselves. The question isn't whether the negative leaders should be removed from power, but instead whether or not they should have to wait 20 years after thousands and thousands of deaths.

Your argument when it comes to Universal Health Care is quite correct. Managed care has done little for this country. I for one, support universal health care for multiple reasons. Most citizens simply cannot afford health insurance, it is provided by their employer. Yet more and more companies are dropping employee health insurance, at a faster and faster rate. The number on uninsured is rising and the cost of private insurance is still rising. In reality, it comes down to whether you believe health of body is a right or a privilege. I believe that everyone should be given equal access to health at a high level of care. I do believe that private health insurance could work, but it would still not provide support to the entire nation. However, if we are analyzing Ron Paul as a candidate, it is not a positive attribute for him to leave this issue up in the air. I do not support leaving issues that are so important up to each individual state. That is why the federal government was created in the first place--no mater how large or small it should be.

When it comes to the economy, Paul does have a strong understanding, but claiming it is stronger than Kucinich's is a bit much. To claim this and cite no evidence is a bit pointless. Ron Paul is a true conservative and is against taxes, but if you see the way our country has been wasting money for the past seven years, we have to be realistic. This country has an enormous, multi-trillion dollar debt and simply pulling out of foreign nations is not going to change this. The Iraq War is not even included in the nation deficit, yet it is sucking our resources out of us on even an hourly basis. If we are going to rid ourselves of this debt, we have to be realistic and realize that taxes are not going to kill us. They are for the good of the nation, and a higher income paired with more responsible spending can result in an a progressive nation that is moving towards energy independence while cutting outrageous military spending and creating a nation surplus.

I am going to jump to your claims about energy and oil for the moment. To claim that the United States should not be regulating the drilling of oil is outright ridiculous. We have to realize that when it comes down to it, the oil companies are there for profit, not to provide a service to the people. They will continue to operate however they can to produce this profit and if it means drilling in Alaska and the Arctic, so be it. The federal regulations were instated to PREVENT pollution, not simply for show. Our country's policies are already extremely pro-oil and what we simply do not need is the deregulation of the oil industry. Sure, they may pollute on private property, but when it comes down to it, what individual could stand up to multi-billion dollar corporations? Especially if those multi-billion dollar corporations are making record profits as the price of oil continues to rise.

In addition, to claim that the government has no right to regulate the auto industry is too much. American automakers produce cars at the cheapest level possible, meeting simply the lowest standard of gas consumption rates. Had the United States not begun regulating the consumption of oil, we would be drinking it like water. An example of this? There are no CAFE standards for Hummers. They are not tested by the government for consumption rates but get around 11 mpg. I realize that for a product to be built, there must be demand, but there will always be people who get their cars for looks and not for fuel efficiency. The deregulation of the auto industry would result in the same backlash that a deregulation of trade would. Ford vehicles are already known for falling apart due to bad assembly. The fact that we still use oil powered vehicles is a bit ridiculous as well, when we could be using electric vehicles. There is a car that runs on compressed air. Why aren't we all using these vehicles? The idea that American automakers still have the right to sell their product. However, if a product is deemed harmful to the environment and there are other viable options, what right does that product have to stay on the market? If we halted production of internal combustion motors we could conserve consumption of oil to such a degree that we would have time to finish research on alternative energy sources.

I also still stand by my argument that Paul's stance on gun control is an absolute campaign killer. This country's murder rate is already high enough. We do not need people walking around with shotguns hidden beneath their coats, loaded and ready to shoot, if need be.
Debate Round No. 2
vonschumann10

Pro

I'm going to start with the UN and the increasing problem posed by gloabalists and supra-national government systems. At the heart of this issue is the undermining of American sovereignty, as I said before, the transfer of power from the American Congress, which, for the record, is the only entity which can constitutionally declare war or regulate trade, and the actual effect that organizations like NAFTA and the WTO actually have, which is both to take away freedom of choice from the American people and to cater towards moneyed special interests. You said that the UN does not undermine American authority, and frankly I find that outrageous. True, our involvement is half assed already, and we ignored them when we went into Iraq. Obviously, as Ron Paul supporter I strongly oppose the war, but the idea that we should only go to war when the UN deems it appropriate is ludicrous. By what authority does an unelected, bureaucratic international organization have to dictate American foreign policy or that of any other nHow does the UN not undermine our national sovereignty? For example, the UN wants to impose a direct tax upon us! You also raised the question "where would we be without the UN?", and I'm really glad that you did, because the answer is a much better place than before it was created. What do we have to show for our involvement in the UN? These past 60 years have been riddled with non declared, unending 'peace keeping' wars, all of which cost the American people dearly. The founders warned against entangling alliance, and that is precisely what the UN is- the worst type of entangling alliance- a permanent one. You said its purpose is to come to a world consensus, and if that is all the UN is....essentially a conference, I'm fine with it. Diplomacy and open dialogue with all nations, which Paul encourages, is great, but bullying 'dissident' nations through sanctions which never work anyway and calling for peace keeping missions which send US soldiers to war without congress's declaration is unacceptable. As for our world image, the reason it is in tatters is due to our foreign policy, and the attempt by the neo cons to hijack the UN as a means to advance an interventionist foreign policy, which the UN is well suited to do..since it is essentially an intervening entity. We could withdraw from the UN, the WTO, etc and conduct truly free trade dictated by the free world market, and conduct diplomacy on our on terms.

With regards to Sudan, I did not mean to be so blunt and inflexible, and I do not think that when Ron Paul rails against interventionism, he means to exclude those who genuinely require our help. However, he does mean to caution against a self serving, arrogant foreign policy which causes backlash. In Sudan, you may be right that the simple presence of our troops might stop the slave raids, but what Paul insists upon is that the president cannot just ignore the constitution and send soldiers on such missions without a declaration of war- because when he does so the wars never end (iraq, vietnam, etc). If we were to intervene in Sudan, several critical issues would have to be addressed before doing so, namely how would we get out once we stepped in? Do the Sudanese genuinely want us there? All that Paul is saying is we need to be more cautious of the ramifications of our involvement abroad, and if it is possible to smoothly end the suffering in Sudan without incensing terrorists and sectarian violence, we should declare war and free the nation.

Within the context of your health care argument, you are correct in one thing- that most Americans simply cannot afford it. However, switching to a government controlled system won't make things any cheaper. The costs will just be 'hidden', in tax rates in the vicinity of 50% as they are in Europe. It would, in reality, not drive costs down all that much. As I said though, what would is true competition and the removal of the federal government into the medicine industry. You may be right in that it comes down to a matter of is health care a right of a privilege, but another matter of principle which I feel is far more important is who should have control of the health care decisions of individuals. These days, it is the insurance companies and the government to some degree, acting collectively as a 3rd party. What we need is a return to a true free market, where doctors and patients interacted directly, and the government did not stick its nose into the business, requiring insurance and drawing up all sorts of regulations that force doctors to delegate resources to ensure that they are met- rather than using those resources on their patients' health. The final authority on health related decisions should reside with the individual and the expert, the doctor, and the last thing we need is the government in total control of the industry, stifling competition and quality, while merely hiding costs, not reducing them. I often hear people contend that Paul's views are merely to delegate authority to the states, with regards to health care and abortion. That comes merely out of his respect for the constitution, something which has sadly been lost. He does have very clear stances on both issues though, which you need look no further than his website to find, but it is not constitutionally permitted for him to implement them as president.

The national debt is a tremendous issue, and I think it is safe to say that both Paulo and Kucinich realize, as you just explained, that our foreign policy is the prime offender. Our defense budget, not including Iraq war appropriations, was over 600 billion dollars in 2007. We borrow endlessly to finance this. As I said before, the government also prints money out of thin air, due to existence of the secretive federal reserve and the absence of a sound money, gold standard system, which leads to the weakening of the dollar and the inability of the lower and middle classes in particular to pay for health care or college for their children, amongst other things. What I think you and Kucinich fail to see is that it is not only foreign policy which has caused this problem, and involvement in things like the UN also facilitates a policy of interventionism in the first place. Government departments, many of which are unconstitutional, like the Department of Education, also contribute heavily to government spending. that is the real issue behind the national debt- spending, not a lack of revenue. the federal government already sucks enough dollars away from hard working Americans, so I take issue with your statement that taxes will not kill us. The more taxes there are, the less truly free a people are. Taxes are coercive, and a free society is defined by a lack of government coercion.

Now,on to the regulation of the economy. The oil companies are there to provide a service and to gain a profit from it. If they competed in a true free market, costs would be driven down...thats a simple law, meaning no gov subsidies. If the federal gov respected property rights more, individuals could stand up to moneyed interests. If that is so, the cost of producing inefficient vehicles and polluting will deter the big companies from doing so. Ford does have a right to place its low quality vehicles on the market, and people should not buy them for that reason. The German government does not regulate the making of BMW's and Audi's- they strive for quality on their own accord.

In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment is very clear in its meaning. Americans have the RIGHT to bear arms. Not the right to only bear whatever arms the government thinks have the proper magazine capacity, but simply arms. The reality is that criminals will acquire arms one way or another on the black market, and law abiding citizens should have access to weapons that they can defend themselves with.individuals can protect themselves
mattresses

Con

mattresses forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
Just one comment. Doesn't it seem strange that the liberals like Ron Paul better than any other Republican candidate? His positions side with liberals more than his supporters are willing to admit.
Posted by mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
my bad on missing the last round. my internet was down until just an hour or two or ago...

oh well.
Posted by inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
to mattresses:

http://www.hightimes.com...
Posted by Wierdkp326 9 years ago
Wierdkp326
I'm looking forward to how this turns out. Ron Paul is a far cry from even being a half decent candidate, but I'll do my best to be objective on the arguments presented. :-)
Posted by mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
I'd like to correct one statement I made. It isn't just Christians that are being enslaved in Sudan. I am not trying to press any religious issues into the debate.
Posted by sccrplyr40 9 years ago
sccrplyr40
hey look! nobody is challenging you because they know Paul IS the best candidate! vote Ron Paul for President
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DrewM 9 years ago
DrewM
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 Acureforthemondays 9 years ago
Acureforthemondays
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 mattresses 9 years ago
mattresses
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 rocker935 9 years ago
rocker935
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 TheGreatDebate 9 years ago
TheGreatDebate
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 vonschumann10 9 years ago
vonschumann10
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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 olympianfootball73 9 years ago
olympianfootball73
vonschumann10mattressesTied
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