The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points
The Contender
Soccerfrk767
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

September 11 Was a Hoax

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 8 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,012 times Debate No: 6413
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (8)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Con

By accepting this debate, Pro agrees to forfeit the last round in order to keep the balance of Pro/Con rounds.

The proposition on offer is that the events of September 11, 2001 were in no way a government (US) hoax, conspiracy, or other attempt to fool the American people.

There have been some debates on this, but they have cooled down, and I hope to ferret out any remaining unconvinced persons out there.

Pro starts.
Soccerfrk767

Pro

Just for clarification, I'm assuming you mean an attack staged by the U.S. govt? I don't necessarily believe that it was, but I have some doubts about it's validity so I will take this debate.

NOTE: I will be using http://www.911truth.org... to supply most of my evidence instead of gathering myself because I am short on time.

Many people doubt the validity of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. They believe them to have been staged by officials high up in the chain of command in the Bush administration. I intend to try to prove to you that there is very good reason to doubt what you were told by the media about these attacks and bring forward proof that you may never have heard that will sway your decision. Please keep an open mind.

My first Contention: Officials knew of an impending attack and did nothing:

According to 911truth.org
a. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
b. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
c. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th

It would seem that many U.S. officials had advanced warning of an attack being planned on 9/11 and yet did nothing. Not only that but the 9/11 truthers also bring forward evidence that there may have been help from high ranking U.S. officials in the Bush administration. Which leads us to my second Contention.

Contention 2: Heavy evidence suggests it may be staged.

Terrorists are trained professionals who leave behind them as little evidence as possible so why according to 9/11
truth.com was there so much "miraculous" evidence left behind.

a. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.

Let's take the passport for instance. If a plane brought down two towers as big as the twin towers, In taking down the towers and burning the metal that supports the tower and a major portion of the plane how would there be a passport found if it wasn't planted there? This evidence suggests that someone wanted us to believe it was terrorists almost to strongly.

Another question posed is, why were the identities of these supposed hijackers never discovered and why are there so many official contradictions coming from the White House?

Leading me to my third Contention.

Contention Three: The 9/11 attacks were staged to get the U.S. into a war with Iraq that would never have been sanctioned otherwise.

b. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.

Immediately it was declared that the hijackers (even though we didn't "officially" know their identities) were Iraqi and that we must invade Iraq immediately to stop further attacks. Because it was such a controversial topic in 2000 talk of a war with Iraq was stopped because both candidates saw that if they supported a war public opinion would be against them thus causing them to lose the election. But this only shows that a war was definitely on the mind of the Bush administration. How convenient then that eight months into his first term George W. Bush was able to declare a state of national emergency and plunge our country into a long and bloody conflict with Iraq. The reasons for this have been many and varied, first the WMD's, oops sorry there were none. Next what was it? the oil? Iraqi freedom? Bush's chance to prove he could outdo his father? We don't know. I assume they do.

In Conclusion you can see that there are many reasons to suppose that it was not merely a terrorist act. Terrorists have a built in motive that can be used to pin the blame on them, namely their religion demands it of them. This is such a strong motive that it may have been hoped it would cover up our own governments motives. As long as they can keep the nation and the people in fear they need no other weapon to keep us under their thumb. As long as they can keep our young military men and women overseas fighting then it's considered unpatriotic not to agree with everything they say. Fear is a powerful weapon and even though it may be a hard truth to accept we need to scrutinize this closely and find out if maybe we have been blinded to the truth by a government that values power more than its people.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

I will admit that this is a surprising approach that no doubt involves more research than your typical conspiracy nut's argument (not to say that my opponent is a conspiracy nut of course). In any event, I'll address the points he brings up...

I don't know if it makes any difference in the scope of the argument, but I was hoping more for things about thermite and the melting point of steel... ;)

***********************************

My opponent's source (911Truth.org) is not very easy to work with, as it just lists claims concerning the attacks and none of the sources that are used to back up the claim... so many of my responses are based on what I've found about the subject that was NOT on 911Truth.org...

On Notice of an impending attack.

Many of the "notices" of the impending attack were not actual notices, but more "general threats" and vague details. And by the way, "The Big Wedding" is the name of a conspiracy theorist's book written ABOUT 9-11. For example, Putin (and Russian Intelligence) is cited as a common source for detail - however, Putin's own statement revealed that he was talking about IRAQ and "terrorist attacks... beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets. But we did not have information that they [Saddam's Regime] were involved in any terrorist acts whatsoever and, after all, these are two different things." As one can see in the third link below, which outlines several different pieces of "forewarning" - many of the tips were incomplete, too vague, delivered after the fact, did not come from reliable sources, or were delivered far before 9-11-01. The amount of raw intelligence, combined with the task of sorting through what was credible and what was not produced a situation that has been described as containing no "actionable intelligence."

Furthermore, the nature of this claim does not actually pertain to the resolution - It is a claim that there was a government cover-up, not that the government was somehow behind it. Furthermore, in my opening argument, I clearly state "The proposition on offer is that the events of September 11, 2001 were in no way a government (US) hoax, conspiracy, or other attempt to fool the American people."

As far as the people being told not to fly, I can't find any reliable evidence of these being in any way related to 9-11. Furthermore, one of the persons (Willy Brown) described his imformation not to fly as being "...not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful," and that the call came from "my security people at the airport."

(http://www.washingtonpost.com...)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk...)
(http://www.foxnews.com...)
(http://www.fpp.co.uk...)

On Evidence it Was Staged.

My opponent contends that "terrorists are trained professionals who leave behind them as little evidence as possible" - this doesn't make much sense... terrorists are suicide bombers and the like, who are concerned with the destruction of their targets - spies are concerned with evidence. Terrorists are concerned withblowing up civilians.

The most concrete evidence is not "miraculous" in any way. Take for example the "unscathed" passport (http://www.historycommons.org...) - it's not really that miraculous considering it was inside an airtight cockpit module that exited the far side of the building, and presents VERY good evidence about who the hijackers were. Furthermore, one of the designers of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has publicly stated that he designed the attacks and sought funding from Bin Laden.

Furthermore, the identities of the hijackers have been discovered - their names and flights were:

UA Flight 175: Marwan al-Shehhi, Fayez Banihammad, Mohand al-Shehri, Hamza al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Ghamdi.
AA Flight 11: Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Waleed al-Shehri, Wail al-Shehri, Abdulaziz al-Omari, Satam al-Suqami.
UA Flight 93: Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Ahmed al-Nami, Saeed al-Ghamdi.
AA Flight 77: Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi.

(http://www.9-11commission.gov...)
(http://news.bbc.co.uk...)

On The War Being Staged.

My opponent reasserts that the identities of the hijackers are unknown... See the above list. None of this is omitted from official investigations and is readily available with a simple Google search. Here is a list of other people who may have been alternates or doubles:

Zacarias Moussaoui, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mohamed al-Kahtani, Fawaz al-Nashimi, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Tawfiq bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mushabib al-Hamlan, Zakariyah Essabar, Saeed Ahmad al-Zahrani, Ali Abd al-Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghamdi, Saeed al-Baluchi, Qutaybah al-Najdi, Zuhair al-Thubaiti, and Saud al-Rashi.

My opponent also asserts that it was determined that the hijackers were Iraqi... However, in truth, it was determined the the hijackers were Saudi. And on top of that, Bush didn't even propose invasion of Iraq for more than a year after the attacks, and the actual war with Iraq didn't begin until 2003, more than 18 months after the attacks.

>> "How convenient then that eight months into his first term George W. Bush was able to declare a state of national emergency and plunge our country into a long and bloody conflict with Iraq."

This is false - the invasion of Iraq began in the THIRD YEAR of Bush's term.

>> "The reasons for this have been many and varied, first the WMD's, oops sorry there were none."

This is also false. Nuclear weapons are not the only type of WMD. There are four types of WMD - Chemical, Radiological, Biological, and Nuclear. Iraq has been known to have chemical and biological weapons at least since 1992 when they used them in a war with Iran.

******************************************

My opponent's most poignant argument seems to be that the government used 911 as a convenient excuse to launch the US into Iraq. However, I have provided evidence that there were indeed WMD's in Iraq, and that the hijackers were determined to be Saudi long before Iraq was invaded...

Much of my opponent's argument is pitched towards showing that the US had forewarning of the attacks. However, this does not indicate that the attacks were a hoax. Also, the fact that the lump of forewarning tips were not salient enough to be considered reliable provides evidence that the government was not involved in trying to fool the citizenry of the US.

I await my opponent's further points, as I have rebutted those he has put forth.
Soccerfrk767

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his eye-opening evidence. I accept all of his sources as legitimate.

However my opponent seems to be trying to sell you on the idea that the Iraq war could not have been a motive for the U.S. Government to stage the 9/11 attacks. I doubt any of you have forgotten to post-9/11 fear and hatred that most Americans felt. The Bush administration took that fear and hatred and turned it on the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
On csmonitor.com a reporter has this to say about a march 2003 press conference held by George Bush:

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

http://www.csmonitor.com...

Many Americans were not satisfied that the people responsible had been served justice. From the moment 9/11 happened the U.S. government used it to keep it's citizens in fear and under their control.

I don't know if my opponent realizes the powerful tool that fear can be. In a defenselink news article put out by the DOD Donald Rumsfeld says the Al Qaeda terrorist network crosses more than 50 countries, the task is to go after it, and the Taliban, "until Americans can go about their lives without fear." this article published on Oct. 29 2001 just one month after 9/11 also included a quote from Rumsfeld saying "As a nation that lost thousands of innocent civilians on Sept. 11, we understand what it means to lose fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters,"

http://www.defenselink.mil...

You see starting in the days following 9/11 the U.S. government touted war. A "global war on terrorism" which essentially means we can invade any country suspected of hiding or aiding terrorists. Iraq was right there. Rich with oil, had a cruel Dictatorship and had the "Taliban" which conveniently had a double motive in that: the NATO had just removed many of their leaders from power; and as I said before their religion.

To many coincidences. So well planned. What about the warnings? It's true what my opponent says. That there had been warnings of something vague going on for many years. But just 2 months before 9/11 on July 10 2001 according the Washington Post

"CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately."

This information had these men who had been doing these jobs for years so worried that they immediately contacted the White House. The Bush administration however saw no cause to worry and ignored warnings from National Security experts. These men advocated a heightened watch in National Security and greater CIA authority to mobilize against terrorists. These warnings were ignored.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Fear is what this all boils down to. The motive: To begin a war thus giving the US government as much "Emergency" authority as they need. Who would question them? That would be Unpatriotic and Un-American.
The Story: Step 1: Stage or ignore warnings about an attack: blame it on al-Quaeda or the Taliban. Step 2: Declare war on terrorism (a definition so broad by the way as to give the US almost unlimited authority in any middle eastern country and many others) Step 3: Mobilize troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

We were all shocked, horrified, angry and scared after the 9/11 attacks we fell so blindly into the trap and demanded that the US government take action. This of course was what they were waiting for and quickly, but not so quickly as to look like this was planned from the beginning. took action against Iraq and Afghanistan countries we had been at War with not a decade before with our current Presidents father. Did Bush go in to finish what his father could not? Did he just want his administration stabilized so that it would be unpatriotic to question the governments authority while our brave servicemen and women died in Iraq? Well whatever it was it worked. Bush has kept our troops in Iraq from 2003 to the end of his two terms as POTUS. He has kept us scared and off balance and as such unable to band together as a people and tell him what he is doing is wrong in any way. Just keep them scared... Fear always works.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Despite the fact that my opponent's entire argument about the Iraq Invasion is a complete red herring, I shall respond to his posts as best I can. However, first, it would be remiss of me to assert that this point is moot without any reasoning behind it.

The resolution states that "September 11 Was a Hoax." For the invasion of Iraq based on September 11 to fulfill PRO's obligation towards the resolution, he must show that the government was behind BOTH acts. For example, the Government may have used Hurricane Katrina to advance some disaster management policy while playing on the fear and insecurities of the people - this does not mean the Hurricane Katrina was a HOAX.

I'm sure my opponent can see the implications of asserting that the Iraq Invasion fulfills the resolution - he would have to prove that in some way the events of September 11 were engineered beforehand to provide an excuse to invade Iraq, not merely that it was used after the fact as a convenient happenstance.

With that in mind, I'll turn towards some of his statements....

******************************************

>> "In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11."

This is all well and good, but not very compelling. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are (or were) both international terrorists and bitter enemies of the United States. It might be fair to say that in 2003, they were #1 and #2 on the United States' hit list (or as I like to say, "The Americanshitlist"). Furthermore, your own source says "Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president." That right there refutes most of your own argument.

>> "A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago."

The irrational belief of 45% of Americans is not indicative of a hoax. More than 45% of Americans believe in God - does this necessitate God's existence? Of course not... this is an ad populum fallacy.

>> "In a defenselink news article put out by the DOD Donald Rumsfeld says the Al Qaeda terrorist network crosses more than 50 countries, the task is to go after it, and the Taliban, "until Americans can go about their lives without fear.""

My opponent treats this quote as though Al Qaeda is not to be feared... a multinational organization we don't really know *that much* about, hell bent on destroying America? An organization that is well-funded, well-organized, and most like able to get their hands on nuclear weapons? Of course America should be scared!! This quote is not evidence of the government USING fear to control the population at all! It's just a statement that this fear exists...

>> "You see starting in the days following 9/11 the U.S. government touted war. A "global war on terrorism" which essentially means we can invade any country suspected of hiding or aiding terrorists. Iraq was right there. Rich with oil, had a cruel Dictatorship and had the "Taliban" which conveniently had a double motive in that: the NATO had just removed many of their leaders from power; and as I said before their religion."

A Global War on Terror... yes... And at the top of the list in the GWOT? Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, the Taliban... Saddam Hussein WAS a terrorist, in addition to being in violation of NATO/UN sanctions. Going to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda (and the Taliban regime that was sheltering them) without attacking Hussein would be like making two trips to Wal-Mart - one for clothes and another for groceries. Furthermore, the notion that we attacked Iraq for their oil is somewhat ludicrous - attacking Iraq caused oil prices to go UP, we get more oil from Saudi Arabia (where the terrorists were from) anyway, AND there's more oil available in Alaska than we could ever get from Iraq.

>> "To many coincidences. So well planned."

What coincidences? What plan? You mean the plan that happened AFTER the events of 9-11?? That's not evidence of a hoax - that's usage after the fact!!

>> "This information had these men who had been doing these jobs for years so worried that they immediately contacted the White House. The Bush administration however saw no cause to worry and ignored warnings from National Security experts."

This is evidence of the Bush Administration's incompetence, NOT a hoax.

>> "The Story: Step 1: Stage or ignore warnings about an attack: blame it on al-Quaeda or the Taliban. Step 2: Declare war on terrorism (a definition so broad by the way as to give the US almost unlimited authority in any middle eastern country and many others) Step 3: Mobilize troops in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Ignoring warnings is NOT a hoax, unless it is done on purpose, which becomes more like staging anyway. To prove this is a viable scenario, my opponent has to prove that Step 1 was indeed deliberate, and he has provided no evidence for any sort of deliberate action taken to perpetrate a hoax.

>> "[Bush?] took action against Iraq and Afghanistan countries we had been at War with not a decade before with our current Presidents father. Did Bush go in to finish what his father could not?"

This notion is pretty silly, considering that US involvement in Iraq began in 1980 at the start of the Iraq-Iran war under president REAGAN. Why did we back Iraq? Perhaps because of the Iran hostage crisis (under CARTER)... The Gulf War under Bush Sr. is an extension of the Iraq-Iran war, NOT a US action.

>> "He has kept us scared and off balance and as such unable to band together as a people and tell him what he is doing is wrong in any way. Just keep them scared... Fear always works."

Whatever happened to proving a hoax? This is political commentary on Bush's conduct since 2003....

*************************************************

My opponent has done nothing this round except expand a red herring argument that does not address the resolution. If he wishes to backtrack this argument and provide a valid basis, he needs to show deliberate action towards engineering September 11 to be a hoax in order to invade Iraq. Remember that usage after the fact does not indicate in ANY WAY that the events of 9-11-01 were part of a hoax.
Soccerfrk767

Pro

I'm afraid here my opponent has set a debate topic that the neg is sure to win (his choice and I took the aff side on my choice) There is no conclusive proof that the US government had anything to do with 9/11. Only whispers and suspicions. It is your opinion whether you decide to believe them or not. I have set forth a motive. I have laid out the plan. As my opponent said I cannot prove that the US government lack of caution and attention to the warnings received was because they were the ones planning the attack. I can only call this to your attention and hope that you will take in all the evidence and it will convince you. I have taken a no win situation here as I cannot "prove" to you that 9/11 was a hoax. I can say however it was extremely messy after 9/11. Reports from the Whitehouse blatantly contradicting those from other official government sources. Fingers being pointed. And I think the very fact that the idea is so widely held that our government may have secretly been involved with an attack on it's own people and the horrible crime that was 9/11 is reason to at least inspect this topic closer. I have presented a motive, and a plausible story to back it up based on the evidence I have found. I agree with my opponent it is somewhat of a logical leap to say that the government ignoring warnings like they did means they were involved. But I see some points that go beyond the people who are really "conspiracy theorists" and believe that "the government is out to get us" It is your choice if you see these and interpret them in this way. I can but produce what evidence I have and await your judgment.
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Some Responses:

>> "I'm afraid here my opponent has set a debate topic that the neg is sure to win (his choice and I took the aff side on my choice) There is no conclusive proof that the US government had anything to do with 9/11."

I suppose this counts as a concession of the debate, but I will admit that I had intended the debate to be more about things like the melting point of steel, silly notions of explosive shear in the girders of the TT1 & 2, and the collapse of WTC7...

>>"Reports from the Whitehouse blatantly contradicting those from other official government sources. Fingers being pointed."

Be as that may, Pro has not fleshed this point out enough to provide a compelling argument...

>> "And I think the very fact that the idea is so widely held that our government may have secretly been involved with an attack on it's own people and the horrible crime that was 9/11 is reason to at least inspect this topic closer."

Again - the use of the attack after the fact in no way indicates that the government was involved.

>> "I have presented a motive, and a plausible story to back it up based on the evidence I have found. I agree with my opponent it is somewhat of a logical leap to say that the government ignoring warnings like they did means they were involved. But I see some points that go beyond the people who are really "conspiracy theorists" and believe that "the government is out to get us""

I believe I've done a sufficient job of debunking the notion that the invasion of Iraq was the result of a hoax about 9-11. The invasion of Iraq's purpose and motives may have had certain aspects of a hoax, but this does not indicate that SEPTEMBER 11 was a hoax.

*************************************

Once again, I was hoping for a debate more on the actual events of 9-11-01, but this is provided an interesting topic concerning the war in Iraq and the perceived and realized bureaucratic failures concerning the events of 9-11.

I'd like to remind PRO to please forfeit the last round... simply posting something in the field will do fine and get it into the voting period sooner...

NEGATED.
Soccerfrk767

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for an interesting debate. I'm afraid as I stated before it would be next to impossible to prove that 9/11 was a hoax. So I will concede. (sorry it took so long to post this)
Debate Round No. 4
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Meh. Thanks.

Vote Con.
Soccerfrk767

Pro

Soccerfrk767 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
You know what I meant. I always think the one on the right is con :p
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
Wait, you're con :) LOL, Soccerfrk is Pro...
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
Probably Con voted for himself :) LOL
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Who voted Con? What the deuce...
Posted by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
This had to have been and easy win anybody who argued against this would be fighting the majority of people's beliefs about 9/11.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Lol - you know what I mean... I hate these bizarre semantic understandings of a resolution...

Besides -

"The proposition on offer is that the events of September 11, 2001 were in no way a government (US) hoax, conspiracy, or other attempt to fool the American people."
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
If you think about it, the day had to have occured. I mean, something has to come between september 9 and 12
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
woops - thought this was the last round...
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> ">>The twin towers were designed to withstand impacts from planes why did they fail. Why also did buildings (like world trade center 7) collapse."

The WTC was designed to take a hit like that from a B25D bomber that hit the Empire State building. However, a B25D only weighs 34,000 lbs... a 767-200 like the one that hit the WTC towers weighs 315,000.

>> "I have yet to hear a compelling argument on why 9/11 was done by terrorists."

How about the high-up members of Al Qaeda that confessed to planning and executing the attacks? Google this guy: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Make one up Toucan - I love these things....
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
JustCallMeTarzanSoccerfrk767Tied
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 mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
JustCallMeTarzanSoccerfrk767Tied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
JustCallMeTarzanSoccerfrk767Tied
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 mecap 8 years ago
mecap
JustCallMeTarzanSoccerfrk767Tied
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 Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
JustCallMeTarzanSoccerfrk767Tied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JustCallMeTarzanSoccerfrk767Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
JustCallMeTarzanSoccerfrk767Tied
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 JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanSoccerfrk767Tied
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