The Instigator
gregthedestroyer
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
YoungHoole
Con (against)
Losing
20 Points

Should the legal drinking age be lowered to age 18?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
gregthedestroyer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,576 times Debate No: 7084
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
Votes (6)

 

gregthedestroyer

Pro

I stand in affrimation that the legal drinking age be lowered to age 18.
I am not going to start this off. My oppenuent will state his case contentions and all and support them. Because i will not post this round my oppenuent will not post any arguement in the very last round. except to conclude like saying good debate, vote for me. something of that nature. if you post in your last round then i hope anybody who votes take note of that and does not give you the right amount of points.
YoungHoole

Con

Hello Opponent. I would like to begin with thanking you with beginning this debate, and I wish you the best of luck! First of all, this is a very risky change to introduce to society. I am assuming that you are talking about the United States, and not the entire globe. Am I correct? Allowing 18 year olds drink legally is just an invitation to more drunk driving, illegal parties, and lower scholarly achievements. Drunk driving accounts for thousands of innocent deaths annually in the United States. Consider the following facts:

Adults age 21 or older who had first used alcohol before age 21 were more likely than adults who had their first drink at age 21 or older to be classified with alcohol dependence or abuse (9.6% vs. 2.1%).
**If this is the case, why start younger?

More than half (58%) of 12th graders report having been drunk at least once in their life. One fifth (20%) of 8th graders report having been drunk at least once in their life.
**Imagine the figures if the age was lowered by 3 years!

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of 15- to 20-year-old drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2005 had been drinking.
**Again, what if this age was lowered? If 8th graders are drinking now, lower that by 3 years. 5th graders drinking?! That could possibly be the reality.

In 2005, about 10.8 million persons ages 12-20 (28.2% of this age group) reported drinking alcohol in the past month. Nearly 7.2 million (18.8%) were binge drinkers, and 2.3 million (6.0%) were heavy drinkers.

** Binge drinking. Do we really want to make this legal for kids still in high school?

And lastly, It is estimated that 24,560 lives have been saved by minimum drinking age laws since 1975.
** Why not make the drinking age higher, and increase those numbers?

Today, thousands of illegal parties will be hosted across the nation offering a wide range of alcohol, drugs, and other illegal activities. Offering alcohol to high schoolers has no real positive effect on anyone. This is giving children still in high school the chance to go off and drink at restaurants and parties without feeling any guilt whatsoever. More drunk driving as a result. With this new-found freedom, many teens won't be able to say no at just another drink. With the temptation of alcohol, many students will be too busy partying and forgetting all about school until it's too late. If students had the opportunity to (legally) drink, then those reluctant to break the law would no longer be restrained. Drinking could lower attendance rates and overall performance; if a student had a choice to go to a party (where they would most likely get drunk) or study, which do you think they would choose?

I want to close with this: Just because 18 year olds are tried as adults, does in no way mean that they should be exposed to all of the privileges offered to mature adults. They need to gain their freedom slowly in order to be more stable. They are tried as adults, because they know how to make the right decisions, but that definitely doesn't mean that they won't. Why take the chance? Don't lower the drinking age, raise it!
Debate Round No. 1
gregthedestroyer

Pro

i would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate i hope for a fun debate.
I will attack my opponents case while i introduce mine at the same time. i also mark what you have said with ~~ if front and ~~ in the back

i like the facts you have given to me. You have shown no proof of theses. i would like to show percents but i can not because im arguing for the future. you state how a 8 graders have reported getting drunk. with them being this young it is more likely to deal with how there parents are at home. and who they hang out with.

you have basicly just stated what it is like already.
you stated that

~~"**Again, what if this age was lowered? If 8th graders are drinking now, lower that by 3 years. 5th graders drinking?! That could possibly be the reality."~~

As teenagers are unable to drink legally in pubs or bars, but are old enough to want to socialise on an evening, they are forced to do it secretly on streets and in parks. This often creates a nuisance to the wider public. It also makes it more likely that younger children will be exposed to alcohol and is often one of the causes of teenage crime, vandalism and violence.

1) The British and US limits on drinking alcohol do not stop teenagers from consuming alcohol, instead it makes underage drinking cool and so makes teenagers more likely to do it. In Italy, Spain and France the limit is lower, and a culture of having wine at the table from a young age encourages a responsible approach where alcohol is not consumed for its own sake or to excess. With higher alcohol age limits, young people in the UK and US find it harder to get alcohol and so binge-drink when they do. This is not only harmful to them but creates a damaging attitude towards alcohol which continues into their later lives.

This refrutes most of your points.

2)Studies have shown that limited alcohol consumption (a couple of glasses of red wine per week) can actually have positive health benefits. However this message and those health benefits are lost in a binge drinking culture. Lowering the age limit would be an important step in changing drinking habits and would have long-term health benefits.

3)This is an issue of the freedom to choose. Legally we accept that at 18 year eighteen year old individual is old enough to make rational choices about a whole host of things, from having sex to fighting for their country. We also allow eighteen year olds to harm themselves, if they choose to, by smoking tobacco or non somking tobacco such as snuff and chew. If sixteen year olds are thought rational enough to make those choices, there is no reason to deny them the right to choose whether to drink alcohol or not.
YoungHoole

Con

My opponent has done his job to prove that changing the drinking age to 18 would be helpful and/or practical to society. It is his task to not only refute arguments, but to also prove his side of the issue.

"i like the facts you have given to me. You have shown no proof of theses."

I would like to apologize for not including the links from which I got the information earlier. The following sites are my sources:

http://www.sadd.org...
http://www.alcoholalert.com...

"you state how a 8 graders have reported getting drunk. with them being this young it is more likely to deal with how there parents are at home. and who they hang out with."

This does not disprove my statement. In fact, it isn't relevant to the topic it at all. Who an eighth grader hangs out with the absence of a parent has nothing to do with the statistics or the topic.

"As teenagers are unable to drink legally in pubs or bars, but are old enough to want to socialise on an evening, they are forced to do it secretly on streets and in parks. This often creates a nuisance to the wider public. It also makes it more likely that younger children will be exposed to alcohol and is often one of the causes of teenage crime, vandalism and violence."

Firstly, lowering the drinking age will create a larger nuisance to the public, considering that 18 year olds (still classified as teenagers) will now be creating wrecks and disturbances. As for the last sentence, it totally proves my point. Why give the alcohol to kids younger in age? That just lowers the age in which illegal drinking is going on. Young children still in elementary school getting drunk. Do we really need this?

Just seriously think about it. "…the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25,…" Risky behavior? That sounds familiar. That's the kind of behavior humans portray with even the littlest bit of alcohol in their system. "We'd thought the highest levels of physical and brain maturity were reached by age 18, maybe earlier -- so this threw us," Again. The brain is not fully ready for the huge responsibility of being able to drink freely at just the age of 18. These facts prove it. 18 year old brains just are not ready. "That makes adolescence "a dangerous time, when it should be the best." Hmm. If this is the case, maybe we should consider raising the driving age to 18. Actually, many states are! They don't believe that 15-16 year olds are ready for the large responsibility of being behind the wheel. If the age gets moved to 18, we shouldn't be allowing children this age to drink while learning to drive! "Teenagers are four times as likely as older drivers to be involved in a crash and three times as likely to die in one, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety." Wow. Again, maybe we should reconsider the driving age. If you add alcohol into this mix, the result is NOT going to be pretty. [All of these stats taken from: http://www.washingtonpost.com...] Also, "A number of factors influence how and to what extent alcohol affects the brain (1), including how much and how often a person drinks; the age at which he or she first began drinking, and how long he or she has been drinking; the person's age, level of education, gender, genetic background, and family history of alcoholism"
[Taken from: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...] Again, if this is what is to become of drinking young, I certainly don't want to be a part of it.

Another point to consider ties right in with the driving age issue. Many states and counties are seriously considering making it illegal to talk/text and drive at the same time. I don't believe that we should let teens be able to drink alcohol, if they can't even text and drive. [Which as we all know is a huge issue amongst teens.]

On your point about the army; serving in the army and drinking alcohol shouldn't even be compared. Serving in the army is a prestigious honor, while drinking alcohol has damaging and lasting negative effects. I can't even believe that you compared the two! How disrespectful, seriously. Anyways, drinking alcohol involves negative peer pressure, doing wrong things, and losing control. The armed forces involve serving your country, being strong, and encouraging others. Please don't refer to this fact again, for it can be very disrespectful towards the families of loved ones in the armed forces working hard daily in serving our country.

The opponent has failed to prove why the age to drink should be changed to 18 and refute the following points:

a.)Lowering the drinking age will be harmful for drivers
b.)Children are already drinking—if the age was lowered, even more would have the opportunity to be inebriated
c.)The brain is not fully developed at age 18, which means that alcohol could serve to damage it
Debate Round No. 2
gregthedestroyer

Pro

Ok you beleive i did not refute your points but i did and i will show how.... there will be a lof of parts will be named "i said" and "you said" this way i can show what you said your first post and how i fruted my post ok.

I SAID
"you state how a 8 graders have reported getting drunk. with them being this young it is more likely to deal with how there parents are at home. and who they hang out with."

YOU SAID
This does not disprove my statement. In fact, it isn't relevant to the topic it at all. Who an eighth grader hangs out with the absence of a parent has nothing to do with the statistics or the topic.

It is relevant to the topic. I was showing other ways how kids could start dinking.

I SAID.
"As teenagers are unable to drink legally in pubs or bars, but are old enough to want to socialise on an evening, they are forced to do it secretly on streets and in parks. This often creates a nuisance to the wider public. It also makes it more likely that younger children will be exposed to alcohol and is often one of the causes of teenage crime, vandalism and violence."

YOU SAID
Firstly, lowering the drinking age will create a larger nuisance to the public, considering that 18 year olds (still classified as teenagers) will now be creating wrecks and disturbances. As for the last sentence, it totally proves my point. Why give the alcohol to kids younger in age? That just lowers the age in which illegal drinking is going on. Young children still in elementary school getting drunk. Do we really need this?

As you can see when you said they create nuisance. that why it needs to be moved to 18 so they are not on the street. It was clearly said, and again the las sentence says why it should be 18 so they are not on the streets so younger kids.. 8th grade as you stated are not exposed to it. so this has been refuted.

YOU SAID
Just seriously think about it. "…the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25,…" Risky behavior? That sounds familiar. That's the kind of behavior humans portray with even the littlest bit of alcohol in their system. "We'd thought the highest levels of physical and brain maturity were reached by age 18, maybe earlier -- so this threw us," Again. The brain is not fully ready for the huge responsibility of being able to drink freely at just the age of 18. These facts prove it. 18 year old brains just are not ready.

OK. they brain in not fully developed at age 18 we know this. but as everybody know and as you said underage people drink all the time and they drink a lot. i have already talked about how this would change in my frist arguments
you can go back and read my point but i will re post them at the end. And yo say the barin is not done growing untill age 25 and let the legal drinkage is 21.

YOU SAID.
"That makes adolescence "a dangerous time, when it should be the best." Hmm. If this is the case, maybe we should consider raising the driving age to 18. Actually, many states are! They don't believe that 15-16 year olds are ready for the large responsibility of being behind the wheel. If the age gets moved to 18, we shouldn't be allowing children this age to drink while learning to drive!

This is a debate on drinking age not the driving age. so all this is useless information.

YOU SAID
Another point to consider ties right in with the driving age issue. Many states and counties are seriously considering making it illegal to talk/text and drive at the same time. I don't believe that we should let teens be able to drink alcohol, if they can't even text and drive. [Which as we all know is a huge issue amongst teens.]

Again this is about the legal drinking age.

You talked about me reference to dinking and the army and called it disrespectful.

You said
On your point about the army; serving in the army and drinking alcohol shouldn't even be compared. Serving in the army is a prestigious honor, while drinking alcohol has damaging and lasting negative effects. I can't even believe that you compared the two! How disrespectful, seriously. Anyways, drinking alcohol involves negative peer pressure, doing wrong things, and losing control. The armed forces involve serving your country, being strong, and encouraging others. Please don't refer to this fact again, for it can be very disrespectful towards the families of loved ones in the armed forces working hard daily in serving our country.

my points again agrgued the negative impact. and about it being direspect full.. people die everybay in the army. but they are allowed to risk there life and die. but they can not get back to base and drink a cold one to help wind down?

I refuted your points.
YOUR POINTS
a.)Lowering the drinking age will be harmful for drivers

as you said people already underage drink. my point talkes about less drunk on the road. i will repost all my points.

b.)Children are already drinking—if the age was lowered, even more would have the opportunity to be inebriated

i have refuted this several times again in my arguement and just above

c.)The brain is not fully developed at age 18, which means that alcohol could serve to damage it

i have just now refuted this in thei post cause this was the first she has posted this.

MY POINTS. PLEASE TAKE NOTE TAHT THEY REFUTE HERS.
1) The British and US limits on drinking alcohol do not stop teenagers from consuming alcohol, instead it makes underage drinking cool and so makes teenagers more likely to do it. In Italy, Spain and France the limit is lower, and a culture of having wine at the table from a young age encourages a responsible approach where alcohol is not consumed for its own sake or to excess. With higher alcohol age limits, young people in the UK and US find it harder to get alcohol and so binge-drink when they do. This is not only harmful to them but creates a damaging attitude towards alcohol which continues into their later lives.

2)Studies have shown that limited alcohol consumption (a couple of glasses of red wine per week) can actually have positive health benefits. However this message and those health benefits are lost in a binge drinking culture. Lowering the age limit would be an important step in changing drinking habits and would have long-term health benefits.

3)This is an issue of the freedom to choose. Legally we accept that at 18 year eighteen year old individual is old enough to make rational choices about a whole host of things, from having sex to fighting for their country. We also allow eighteen year olds to harm themselves, if they choose to, by smoking tobacco or non somking tobacco such as snuff and chew. If sixteen year olds are thought rational enough to make those choices, there is no reason to deny them the right to choose whether to drink alcohol or not.

AND PLEASE TAKE NOTE THAT SHE DID NOT TOUCH ON MY 2 POINT.
YoungHoole

Con

I think my opponent does not understand the points I made, so I will be clarifying some things.

"It also makes it more likely that younger children will be exposed to alcohol and is often one of the causes of teenage crime, vandalism and violence… It is relevant to the topic. I was showing other ways how kids could start dinking."

Why an eighth grader drinks has nothing to do with lowering the drinking age.
"As you can see when you said they create nuisance. that why it needs to be moved to 18 so they are not on the street."

Even though teens may not be the best decision makers, I'm sure that they would have enough common sense to know not to drink on the street/in a park (where they could easily get caught).

"but as everybody know and as you said underage people drink all the time and they drink a lot."
Lowering the drinking age will not stop this—in fact, the underage people would feel less guilt. Say a seventeen year old drinks; this may make them feel guilt, considering that they're supposed to wait four years. However, if the age was lowered to eighteen, they wouldn't feel much guilt because they'd only have one year left until they could legally drink.

"And yo say the barin is not done growing untill age 25 and let the legal drinkage is 21."

At least the brain is nearing full development. Lowering the drinking age will make some people lose three years of development if they chose to drink.

"Another point to consider ties right in with the driving age issue. Many states and counties are seriously considering making it illegal to talk/text and drive at the same time. I don't believe that we should let teens be able to drink alcohol, if they can't even text and drive. [Which as we all know is a huge issue amongst teens.]"

"Again this is about the legal drinking age."

It is, because if teens can't even use their phones in a car, then they definitely shouldn't be able to drink.

You say that if I didn't think that the army and drinking should be compared, then neither should drinking and driving. Driving, unlike the army, is extremely relevant to drinking...so yeah. That totally destroys that point. Also, as for "drinking a cold one" at base, what happens if somebody bombs their base camp? That wouldn't be good. As we all know, alcohol limits your reactivity time, even with just one sip. I don't think that we want soldiers drinking a "cold one" every day after fighting for our country.

1) The British and US limits on drinking alcohol do not stop teenagers from consuming alcohol; instead it makes underage drinking cool and so makes teenagers more likely to do it. In Italy, Spain and France the limit is lower, and a culture of having wine at the table from a young age encourages a responsible approach where alcohol is not consumed for its own sake or to excess. With higher alcohol age limits, young people in the UK and US find it harder to get alcohol and so binge-drink when they do. This is not only harmful to them but creates a damaging attitude towards alcohol which continues into their later lives.
*** Ok? So what is underage drinking is "cool?" It makes drinking in general cool. Many kids will give into peer pressure no matter what. Even if they are allowed legally to drink, that won't mean that they'll suddenly just drink less and less and be more responsible. I have been trying to get this point across the entire debate. More and more teens, those who would usually not give into peer pressure, will be drinking, while those who do give into pressure, will be getting wasted more often!

2)Studies have shown that limited alcohol consumption (a couple of glasses of red wine per week) can actually have positive health benefits. However this message and those health benefits are lost in a binge drinking culture. Lowering the age limit would be an important step in changing drinking habits and would have long-term health benefits.
***Changing drinking habits? Studies have shown that the younger a child starts drinking, then the more of a chance that they will become dependant on it.

3)This is an issue of the freedom to choose. Legally we accept that at 18 year eighteen year old individual is old enough to make rational choices about a whole host of things, from having sex to fighting for their country. We also allow eighteen year olds to harm themselves, if they choose to, by smoking tobacco or non smoking tobacco such as snuff and chew. If sixteen year olds are thought rational enough to make those choices, there is no reason to deny them the right to choose whether to drink alcohol or not.
*** There's a lot wrong with this scenario. Teens are greatly discouraged in engaging in smoking, sex, or chewing tobacco. As I mentioned before, being in the army is a privilege. Drinking, while considered a privilege, is a restricted activity. Being in the armed forces, is an honorable service, while drinking [not all of the time, but 9 times out of 10] isn't "honorable."

New points:
More easily accessible to younger teens, because people in your high school will be able to legally drink. Drunken teens at football games, but legally drinking. What a horrid situation that would be! Young children aspiring to be football players sitting next to legal drunks.
You drink alcohol in America to get wasted as opposed to other countries where you drink just to drink. That refutes your point on drinking more responsibly in countries where you can drink socially, without the temptation of sneaking about behind adult's back.
More 18 year olds driving while drunk.
21 year olds are generally more mature. They are out in the real world, in college or maybe even almost out of college!
Those kids who often drink illegally, underage, most of the time they don't have to work hard to hide their activities. Their parents obviously don't care enough to know what they're doing or where they are, so they have that chance. That will remain until they can move out and live on their own.

**Just like to point out, my opponent failed to comment on my school scenario.
Thanks so much! One last round. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 3
gregthedestroyer

Pro

gregthedestroyer forfeited this round.
YoungHoole

Con

I believe that it's really funny how my opponent says that he should win, even though he only had 2 arguments total, forfeiting one round. These arguments were filled with the same points over and over, even though I continuously negated them. As for the red wine, that's just the same as the Sun. The rays from the Sun are good for you, but not in large amounts. Even though, alcohol is not good for the body period, until the brain is fully developed. Also, I highly doubt that that is why kids will drink wine; for health reasons.
All in all, the drinking age should not be lowered by 3 years but raised by 3 years! Thousands of lives would be saved, and millions more positively impacted. Why risk even more drunk driving, rampant underage alcohol abuse, and lives lost? American teens believe that drinking underage is cool, and that you drink to get wasted. That is just the way that our society is functioning now. Lowering the age will just cause more trouble for younger and younger teens. No benefits come from lowering the drinking age to 18! None! Whatsoever! Thanks so much for this debate, and I hope that you all take into consideration what a massive and widespread problem this is.
Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YoungHoole 7 years ago
YoungHoole
Okay...well then that exactly proves my point.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
I know you didnt mean that younghoole , jsut trying to point out way you said it did.

Also , ok the people in the U.S.A drink to be cool .

over here in scotland want to know why they drink ? for 3 reasons

1) because a large majority of our population are alcholoics.

2) because they want to get drunk jsut for the hell of it , partys etc.

3) because a large majority of our population of children in citys go out get so drunk they can barley stand , take a knife with them and go and have massive gang fights and most of the time somebody dies from being stabbed to death by a mob of drunk wee children.

now our murder rate is incredibly high based on our population , we are the murdercapital of west europe , something liek 70% of murders here were commited by a drunk teen with a knife, but most of these teens are under 18 . So when they turn 18 they start to feel the need to act more resposonsible , they feel that if somebody trusts them with booze , then thewres no point in abusing it , unless of course they are alhcolics.
Posted by YoungHoole 7 years ago
YoungHoole
Well, you still forfeited that round...plain and simple!! I don't care if you "needed that round or not." You didn't post anything on that round....therefore I should have won. But I didn't, and I accept that fact. rangersfootballclub....I never said that ALL 18 year olds would be getting drunk 24/7. I just stated that in the US, people drink to get drunk, to be cool. You do not live here, so you can't say that that is not right. Although I may have made it sound as though every 18 year old isn't responsible, thousands aren't and will abuse this right. It is just a fact. The younger you begin drinking, the worse overall.
Posted by gregthedestroyer 7 years ago
gregthedestroyer
obviously I was. I did all the debating I had to do. I didn't need that round.
Posted by RacH3ll3 7 years ago
RacH3ll3
BUT YOU FORFIETED A ROUND!

It doesnt matter who you agree with, its who the better debater was and that certainly wasnt gregthedestroyer, because he forfieted!
Posted by gregthedestroyer 7 years ago
gregthedestroyer
I like it. Thanks. That was another point i was trying to get across. Thanks for understanding
Posted by rangersfootballclub 7 years ago
rangersfootballclub
i didnt vote , because i can't.

but seeing cons arguments sure its good , but pro doesnt need to argue to much to win this , like i said here in scotland , the drinking age is 18 , now con is saying this would be disatoruoes , in a way i agree , but here in scotland and irleand and the uk , the majorirty of the population are heavy drinkers anyway , I dont know why i think there are diffrent factors , such as the s**t weather !

but i have noticed one thing , if you allow these "children" to drink , even rthough they are legal adults and can do jsut about anything legal they want except drink , they will act like children about that one issue , drinking . They will go out get wasted , and stick two fingers up to the law. I know from first hand expirince as i myself use to be one of these "children " when i was 16 and not allowed to drink , then when i hit 18 I thought to myself , oh well i should drink resoponsibily ( except on some occasions ) as there is no point in trying to fight the system anymore , nobodys going to care if an 18 year old drinks , meaning they are not trying to prove a point , the only time teenagers go out and get drunk , is at weekend partys etc. Do you think the majority of 18 year olds in america cant handle the responsibility of a drink ? do you thinkt he ones with jobs , and a family will be drunk 24/7 ? use your head younghoole , stopping them drinkin when they should makes them feel discrimanted against , and will feel the need to drink , to prove some kind of point like , you can't stop me.
Posted by gregthedestroyer 7 years ago
gregthedestroyer
I won cause i was better. and other people thought so to. if you would like to debate me again or anyting just holla
Posted by YoungHoole 7 years ago
YoungHoole
Actually, no I didn't know that you meant loser....& thank goodness there is somebody with sense!! I have no idea how he managed to win either.
Posted by RacH3ll3 7 years ago
RacH3ll3
I dont understand how he won. I dont have a problem with him or anything, but con was the better debater. Pro even forfieted a round. and he still one. Someone is voting based on friends or biased.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by pgoulaimpact 7 years ago
pgoulaimpact
gregthedestroyerYoungHooleTied
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 pieman 7 years ago
pieman
gregthedestroyerYoungHooleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
gregthedestroyerYoungHooleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by YoungHoole 7 years ago
YoungHoole
gregthedestroyerYoungHooleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by brendizzle29 8 years ago
brendizzle29
gregthedestroyerYoungHooleTied
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 18freckles 8 years ago
18freckles
gregthedestroyerYoungHooleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06