The Instigator
sccrplyr40
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
SolaGratia
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

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: 1/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,788 times Debate No: 2276
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (16)

 

sccrplyr40

Pro

Since this debate is 5 rounds, I shall allow my opponent to make the opening statement.

Please first notify me on which candidate you support and tell me why his/her views make him/her the best person for the job.

Good luck and thanks for debating me on this topic.
SolaGratia

Con

Ron Paul is not the best candidate for the Presidency.

Frankly, in a perfect world, he would be, but America does not need Ron Paul's isolationism at this point in history. If we withdraw from the world military scene, as Paul advocates, it would do far more harm than good. Our image in the world would then be entirely formed by our enemies.

1. Ron Paul wants to withdraw from Iraq. And not just withdraw. I'm sure he would love it if he could just snap his fingers and put all American soldiers overseas back on our soil permanently. Of course, it is American troops in the Middle East that keep it from descending into chaos and violence. It was American troops that protected the sovereignty of South Korea and Taiwan. The world, passing over Vietnam--the debacle of which was caused by anti-war loonies of whom Paul is the modern incarnation--would be a far darker place without American troops in the past century.

2. And that's not even to speak of both World Wars, when we almost singlehandedly defeated the forces of tyranny, and the Cold War.

That is just one long argument against Paul. I have many.

Thanks for making this debate.

Sola Gratia
Debate Round No. 1
sccrplyr40

Pro

Ok, first of all, thank you for accepting this debate.

I want to start off by asking you who you support and why? I would like to know what kind of views you have on the issues. Now onto your argument.

You say that Ron Paul is an isolationist in your first point. This is completely false, and here's why. Yes, he wants to withdraw all troop home the USA, and yes that would mean that we would leave the Iraq war right away as well. However, keeping troops at home in the USA, is NOT isolationism. Isolationism would be cutting off all contact with other countries, including trade, discussions, and treaties. If the world turned to turmoil when we left, then the U.N. could actually do its job and step in for once. The U.N. figures that we will take on anything that they don't deal with, and therefore let it go. Not to mention, the world would then see us in a new light saying, "Gosh, they were doing all the protecting around the world and everybody just keeps giving them crap and telling them to get the h*** away from our country. I think we should step in and help them."

Onto your second point. You say that, "[W]e almost singlehandedly defeated the forces of tyranny, and the Cold War." The key to this statement is the word 'almost'. We did NOT stop the cold war singlehandedly, we needed help, you even say so. Therefore how are the places we occupy now going to be any different? We need help to 'win' in Iraq (even though I think a loss is inevitable in Iraq), so we should rely on the U.N. to step in where there is conflict. This includes, but is not limited to, Darfur, Kenya, Iran, North Korea. We are not the world's police no matter how much the world wishes we are.

I now await your rebuttal.

Matt

(Don't forget to answer my question at the beginning)
SolaGratia

Con

Well, in answer to your question at the beginning, I supported Fred Thompson before he dropped out, and I lead toward Mike Huckabee right now, with Mitt Romney a last resort. I'm generally Conservative. By the way, you could have found all this out by clicking on my profile.

First of all, there are some serious logical errors undermining your argument. You say that pulling out of Iraq, and dismantling all of our military bases overseas would actually IMPROVE the United States' standing in the world? That makes no sense at all. The rest of the world, in general, is going to hate us whatever the heck we do because we are the big boy on the block. There's no getting around it. World opinion of us is not a compelling reason to elect Ron Paul, and I'm pretty sure they'd hate him even more than they hate GWB.

You say that other countries' attitudes to our withdrawal from the world scene would be, "Gosh, they were doing all the protecting around the world and everybody just keeps giving them crap and telling them to get the h*** away from our country. I think we should step in and help them."

That is completely wrong. If they can't realize that this is true without having us pull out, they never will.

Just because we needed "help" to end the Cold War doesn't mean it wasn't mostly our doing. With the help of our like-minded allies, we won the Cold War. You think that some other country would assume our role in foreign affairs? Which one? Britain? Germany? France? Japan? China? God help us, Russia? Would you really trust them, even if they did exactly what we're doing now?

We should rely on the U.N.? Really? What good have they done lately. Frankly, if the UN were capable of doing what we are doing now you would be right. But it can't, so you're not. The UN is too slow and forgiving. The free world would have nukes shoved up their collective noses within months.

You don't really attack WHAT we are doing in the world, only that we ARE doing it. You say, in fact, that if we didn't do it, other countries would step in. Why should we make them do that when we are capable? Why should we, to use an example from history, let the British and French defend themselves from the Nazis when the fate of the free world is at stake? In all honesty, that would have destroyed us. And nothing has changed today except the religion of our adversaries.

Ron Paul IS a MILITARY isolationist, like no US president has been.

I admit that besides that, I generally agree with him except for his pure hatred for government.

It's up to you to defend Ron Paul, as the instigator of this debate, you must state your case. You haven't. Please do that in the next round.

Thanks,

Sola Gratia
Debate Round No. 2
sccrplyr40

Pro

Returning troops to the USA from overseas would most definitely be beneficial. We save our troops lives, we save ourselves money to better economically develop ourselves, the 'world power" (UN) would be forced to act, we would be recognized in the world as a needed country towards keeping the peace. Which would be then turned over to the UN. I can GUARANTEE you that Ron Paul could NOT be hated more than 'W'. W is a horrible president and should be impeached (even though it's a little late now).

Countries would recognize us keeping the peace if we withdrew because the violence in the world would indefinitely escalate for a period of time until the UN figured out what to do. No matter how much you want to believe that we are the worlds police, we aren't. In case you haven't noticed by now, the UN (a combined world power) should step into our foreign affairs.

The UN has NOT stepped into any affairs lately, you are completely correct on that statement. However, they do not step in, because they KNOW that we will! They would not be so slow-moving if they knew they were the ones keeping order in the world.

Now, when you say, "Why should we make them do [step into our foreign affairs] when we are capable? Why should we, to use an example from history, let the British and French defend themselves from the Nazis when the fate of the free world is at stake?," I think you are looking at the picture from an angle instead of straight on like most people would look at the picture. You are comparing WWII to the Iraq war (which you may or may not believe is part of the war on terror). WWII and the Iraq war are two completely different things.

WWII:

-fate of the world depended on defeating the Nazis

Iraq War:

-fate of world does NOT depend on defeating Al-Queda, in fact, Al-Queda even warned us of 9-11 before they attacked! they told us to get off of the Arabian Peninsula, and we did not. So they blew up one of our naval ships in the Arabian Sea. They warned us again, and we did not comply, so they attacked on 9-11. The motive behind 9-11 was our fault. I am BY NO MEANS, saying that we were responsible for Al-Quedas actions, but we WERE the motive behind them.
You claim that Al-Queda will destroy us, ("In all honesty, that would have destroyed us") when they won't, they want the US out of the Middle East, and so do the American People. So what is making it so difficult to accomplish this task? They wont destroy the US, because they won't have any motivation to do anything.

Military isolationist? maybe, but when you waste money on inefficient wars, projects, and other things, it does NOT help anyone. Ron Paul would surely bring all troops home because us fighting where we shouldn't be, is unnecessary and illogical. it is unnecessary because we don't have ANY motivation for being there or fighting for what we think we should be doing, and it is illogical because we are wasting our own resources to accomplish basically nothing.

Ron Paul does NOT have a "hatred for government". He believes in our constitution, which, in the 10th amendment, states, "all rights not granted to the federal government shall be granted to the states". I don't see how that is a "hatred for government".

There is my defense for this debate.

Matt
SolaGratia

Con

We keep rehashing this same territory.

You make a good point when you say that the Iraq war might not in the end have the far-reaching consequences of the Iraq war. I tend to think of the war, however, as something like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Bosnia that set off the keg of powder known as World War I. If we win in Iraq, we can hit the Rewind button on the world in a way. We can recover our image in the world from its post Vietnam low, and we will show the Islamofascists that no quarter will be given or asked. Anything less than total, lasting victory will be like the stumble that brought the giant down for the ravening hounds to devour. We cannot lose.

You're blaming the U.S. for the laziness of the UN? Think again. They have made themselves unable to help us maintain the free world with their own bureaucrats.

You honestly think that Al-Qaeda and their allies will stop when they have the Muslim part of the world free of the "barbarians"? Sorry, but no. These people are religious fanatics. They want to convert us, or kill us, and they haven't been doing much converting lately. They hate civilization. They HATE it. And they will stop at nothing to destroy it. What you and other otherwise intelligent people fail to grasp is that they HATE. We do not hate them, they hate us. And that gives them a definite advantage. Not to say that if we give them the Middle East, they will cut off our oil supplies. Now everyone with a brain wants to wean us off foreign oil, but if it happened right now, today, we would starve to death. Our country would collapse in a few weeks' time.

True, we should have known Al-Qaeda was coming. Frankly, if Clinton and his somnambulist administration had not been such incompetent blowhards, this never would have happened. And Bush wasn't entirely guiltless either.

We were the "motivation" behind Al-Qaeda? Oh, so that makes it okay with you, does it? Sorry, but they have no one to blame but themselves. Millions of Muslims live in America around the world, content to exist peacefully with their fellow humans. But these fanatics cannot bear to do that.

Moving beyond that issue, I do know what the tenth Amendment says. So do most Americans. I don't deny that the government has too much power. If Ron Paul wasn't personally so acidic, so old, and so misguided about the war, he would have my heartfelt support.

The UN should step into our foreign affairs? Right. So, we should have let THEM run the war in Iraq. Oh, that would be a great success. They would governmentize the poor radicals into crying submission.

Ron Paul goes beyond the tenth amendment. He has a hatred for government.

We have merely covered the issues. In the next round, I will address the PERSONAL aspects of Ron Paul's unfitness for the Presidency.

Thanks,

Sola Gratia
Debate Round No. 3
sccrplyr40

Pro

I'm going to assume you meant "far-reaching consequences of WWII."

First off, it is NOT possible to win the war in Iraq, in fact you gave me the proof. It's not possible because they have a cause worth fighting for, we don't, they hate and we don't. It's that simple. They can only gather enough 'haters' to fight us if/when we leave. And at that point, they WILL stop because they won't have a choice. The Iraq war will turn out the same way Vietnam did no matter who is president. The only question that remains is, "How many American Soldiers are going to have to die before we realize that?"

I don't know how you can think of the Iraq War as the assasination of Ferdinand? That just puzzles me. If we lose, which will happen, we will not be subject to the 'ravening hounds', we will just prove that we are human instead of this giant war-hungry nation that will destroy anyone who tries to hurt us.

Apparently you dont understand the UN very well. Yes, they need to fix some policies that would allow them to more easily step into world conflicts, but that wont happen unless the UN realizes they are needed in the world.

You do realize that Al-Queda wasn't even in Iraq when the war began right? They only came because we were there taking over Middle Eastern soil.

I'm not exactly sure how you can blame Clinton for the mess that Bush got us into, and then say that Bush wasn't completely to blame. Yes, you say, "wasn't entirely guiltless," but that makes it sound like Clinton is as much to blame for the War as Bush. Sorry, but that is NOT the case.

I NEVER said that they could blame us for 9-11, I said that had we not provided the motivation for the attacks, it wouldn't have happened. There's a difference between that and saying it was partially our fault like you are making me sound.

I'm curious as to what kinds of policies you find are 'acidic'? Following that, I'm not sure why age should define a persons capability as president. Thirdly, Paul is NOT misguided about the war, he is the one with the truth about it.

One of your last points suggests that the UN shouldve run the war instead of us. I don't think we should've EVER gone into Iraq, and the UN actually made a GOOD decision on that choice. Iraq NEVER had WMD's and we had NO proof that they did, yet we went into their country and found what? Oh, Nothing. We presumed them guilty instead of innocent (unlike our court system), which had we gone the other way and made a rational decision, we wouldn't be in this situation either.

Dr. Paul does NOT have a hatred towards government, he believes that the constitution is our guide and recently (Bush's administration) the Federal Government has gotten WAY too powerful. Which is true. A prime example of this is the patriot act. It is anything but patriotic.

If you address the personal aspect of Paul being 'too-old', that is just unfair, b/c age shouldn't be a factor for presidency.

I look forward to your counter-argument.

Matt
SolaGratia

Con

This debate has become almost solely about the war. I mentioned this in my last post, but neither of us seemed inclined to follow my advice. Very well, now I will.

1. Ron Paul's age SHOULD not matter. It wouldn't, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, in this world, people age, and as they do they slowly but surely lose their mental faculties. Ron Paul may not be subject to this now, but heck, if he wins he has four years to go. Please don't bring up Reagan. Ron Paul would be older than Reagan was by several years when inaugurated. He would be the oldest President ever. Frankly, if he had been a serious contender in, say, 2000, this would be a non-issue, and I resent that it IS an issue, but it is and there's no getting around it.

2. "Best" is a hard word to define, and is most definitely subjective. YOU may think he's the "best" candidate, but to others perhaps the "best" candidate is Condoleeza Rice or Al Gore. I will try to pin down what you mean by "best."

I assume you mean that Ron Paul is: electable, a sharer of your views, a good leader, a leader who is capable of leading America through the today's tumultuous world affairs, and a principled person.

I will address these one by one.

Electability: Sorry, but no. Ron Paul is patently unelectable. Although he has a dedicated "fan-base," they are mostly college students and mostly white males. While these are by no means bad things, they do not endear him to the general public. Plus, they're mostly outrageous, testosterone-fueled, uncivilized slobs. ()

A sharer of your views: This, of course, is entirely subjective, but he definitely agrees with your views. Not mine, however, and not those of the majority of Americans--or if he does, they do not view him as the right vessel for these views. But more on that later.

A good leader: This, again, is debatable. I would argue that presidential leadership is one of the only qualifications for the job that can't be learned without experiencing them, so it's a non-issue.

A leader who is capable of leading America through the today's tumultuous world affairs: Because of his age and intemperance, I don't think he is capable of leading America through these times. Too old, too angry, too petty, and with nasty rumors of racism in his past.

A principled person: Yes, he is.

Frankly, the only qualifications Ron Paul meets in my admittedly imperfect graph are "principled" and "a sharer of your views." These qualities do not negate his faults, and he is not the best candidate for president.

3. He is angry. Every time I see Ron Paul in a debate, he gets madder. He can turn any question into a huge argument, an insult at his fellow candidates, and an angry screed against the war, Bush, and anything else that gets in the way. All the other candidates, even the Dems, have shows their softer side, but not Ron Paul. He's one-dimensional. He's totally unsubtle, and he's not presidential material.

As the results for Super Tuesday come in, we'll see if voters agree with your assessment of Ron Paul.

Thanks.

Sola Gratia
Debate Round No. 4
sccrplyr40

Pro

When you say that Paul is old and that should be a factor, have you compared his age to McCain's? they are the SAME age!!! and apparently, McCain is winning right now.

Now you are calling me an uncivilized slob? That is uncalled for! This is a debate not a personal attack site. He is supporter by EVERY race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc...

When you "claim" that he is, "Too old, too angry, too petty, and with nasty rumors of racism in his past," I must disagree. Dr. Paul is the most pleasant and kind candidate on the campaign trail. Apparently you haven't seen him talk before which is a shame because he is the person for the job. He has strongly denied the allegations of racism in his past, and since he has absolutely NO dirty marks on his record of flip-flopping (besides parties) and has stayed true to his beliefs, I believe him.

In the debates that Ron is a part of, he gets flustered because the moderator promises 'equal' time to ALL candidates and then he only gets to field 2-4 questions while Romney and McCain go at each other over who voted for what and when. He gets mad at them because he thinks they should be focusing on our FUTURE and not the PAST. Of course Paul gets mad about the war, his stance is against it and he should be forceful about his stance so that true republicans know he is the 'right' candidate with fundamental republican views. Since when do Republicans start wars?

You cannot rely upon the media to present your case for you in this debate. The media presents the straw poll results, NOT however, the actual delegate count. They assume they are proportionate except Paul has a lot more delegates than they want to believe.

Paul is the best candidate for the job, because he knows how to fix our nations problems, not just patch them up. Hopefully, everyone who reads this debate, will vote for the person who argued his case best. I wish you good luck, but still believe Paul to be the best candidate for the job. In Fact, I am a delegate of his in MN.
SolaGratia

Con

Well, McCain is too old as well. Tell you the truth, I'm REALLY surprised that he seems locked in to be the nominee, because of his age. But you made a point: other people don't seem to think age is much of a factor.

If you'll look closely, I did NOT insinuate that you were an uncivilized slob, and for the record I am perfectly aware that this is not an attack site. I merely pointed out that MOST (okay, that was overstating it) Ron Paul supporters ARE, and moreover that the nut jobs are the ones who cause the most fuss. I provided EVIDENCE of this, in the form of a YouTube video. I was NOT INSULTING YOU. On the contrary, you're obviously an intelligent person.

The gender, race, creed, etc. of his supporters is not an issue. To make these things an issue is saying that they matter. That's prejudice, something Ron Paul (and I) are against.

Ron Paul may be personally pleasant, but all that goes out the window when he stands up to make a speech, or answer a question in a debate. Frankly, he grows shrill and angry, reminding me of no one more than Mrs. Clinton herself in her more inflammatory moments. None of the other candidates lose their cool like this, even when discussing issues they strongly disagree with.

I've noticed that you Ron Paul supporters have an inferiority-complex: you're sure the government and the media are out to get you and discredit Ron Paul. It's a conspiracy. Frankly, Ron Paul isn't given as much time as the other candidates in past debates because he is a minor candidate. It probably hurts your feelings, but it's true, and that's all he'll ever be. He has, at last count, 16 delegates. And that's after Super Tuesday. He won't win any states, and he will fade eventually. I'm sorry, but it's going to happen. Watch and see.

The Media doesn't portray the actual delegate counts? Well, here they are: Ron Paul has SIXTEEN DELEGATES. Out of over TWO THOUSAND. Whether the media reported it or not is irrelevant.

Ron Paul may be a good man, but he is not the "best" candidate for President.

Once again, we return to the definition of "best." I think that it generally means, "most accepted," "most successful," and so on. Ron Paul is none of these. He has strong grassroots support, but his poll numbers are insignificant.

I feel that I have successfully proven that Ron Paul is not the "best" candidate, even if for no other reason then that best is so subjective. I've mentioned all his faults, and you've failed to contradict me, so I see no need to restate them here.

Thanks,

Sola Gratia

(P.S. I HIGHLY doubt that you are one of Ron Paul's delegates in Minnesota. Ron Paul DID NOT WIN ANY DELEGATES IN MINNESOTA.)
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Richard89 8 years ago
Richard89
Unfortunately, Romney has dropped out for what he believes would be the good of the party. His actions and the reasons he gave are highly commendable and show him to be a far bigger man than Ron Paul who, even though he knows he could never win, persists to stay in and divert votes. However, I still intend to vote for Romney when my state's primary comes. Mitt Romney won by the vast majority among conservatives. McCain is only winning because of the independents and moderates, and Huckabee is only in the race because of the massive evangelical vote who support him for no other reason than that he is a Christian. Unfortunately, many people were too bigoted to vote for a Mormon even if that meant sacrificing the only conservative left in the race. However, I find it rather telling that Ron Paul has a hard time keeping ahead of Romney even though he dropped out.
Posted by sccrplyr40 8 years ago
sccrplyr40
so richard89, how did supporting Romney pan out for you?
Posted by Richard89 8 years ago
Richard89
sccrply40, you may look at my debate on Ron Paul and see that my objection to him runs much deeper than the fact that I support Romney. You accuse Romney of wishing to raise taxes for the middle class and lower them for the upper class even though he said he would not raise taxes in the upper, middle, or lower classes. Period. Your only "evidence" for this is that he's "just a rich man." To call someone a liar for no other reason than that they are rich is ludicrous and unreasoning in the extreme. Though thankfully he never was a real contender in the election(he makes a lot of noise, but that's all), I find it incumbent to point out that Ron Paul would be even worse for this country than the Clintons. Retreat and defeat, opening the flood-gates of global terrorism, separating from allies, massive government implosion, universal drug legalization, and, of course, the gold standard are just a few of the things we would have to look forward to from this man.
Posted by Scyrone 8 years ago
Scyrone
I vote for none of you. This debate was terribly organized. Even though the facts you both provided were persuasive, it ended up being slightly less about Ron Paul, and more about War.
Posted by sccrplyr40 8 years ago
sccrplyr40
ron paul is predicted to get 9 delegates from MN...too bad you dont pay attention to that
Posted by sccrplyr40 8 years ago
sccrplyr40
he will be a candidate in november whether it is for the GOP party or the libertarian party...he IS a candidate because he IS still in the race....his delegates that are projected are PROJECTED NOT OFFICIAL...wait and see how many he really gets
Posted by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
Well Ron Paul is not the best candidate because HE HAS NO CHANCE of winning. You didn't state that he would be the best winner but the best candidate. By candidate you mean Republican candidate first off because that is what he is ..well since he has 4 (I believe it is 4 ) delegates out of the two thousand something needed. Therefore he will not become a candidate in November so therefore I don't see him as any candidate.
Posted by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
sccplyr: I thought I made clear that Romney is my THIRD choice, after Thompson and Huckabee. I don't like him much either, frankly.
Posted by sccrplyr40 8 years ago
sccrplyr40
you are only saying that Ron Paul would make a horrible president because you are supporting Romney (yuck). Romney would make a horrible president out of all other candidates except Huckabee. He would raise taxes for the middle class, and cut them for the upper class. Yes, he says otherwise, but he is just a rich man craving more power.
Posted by Richard89 8 years ago
Richard89
Ron Paul would make a terrible president for numerous reasons.
Hopefully, Sola Gratia will point more of them out as this debate continues.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 FreedomPete 8 years ago
FreedomPete
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 PeaceFinger 8 years ago
PeaceFinger
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 Idontcare 8 years ago
Idontcare
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 SamuelAdams 8 years ago
SamuelAdams
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 johnwooding1 8 years ago
johnwooding1
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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 Teja 8 years ago
Teja
sccrplyr40SolaGratiaTied
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