The Instigator
bexy_kelly
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Solving the obesity problem - my method

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: 5/7/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,876 times Debate No: 3931
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (13)

 

bexy_kelly

Pro

The only rule regarding this debate is that a sense of humour is required

Obesity = a condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and other mammals, exceeds healthy limits. It is commonly defined as a body mass index (weight divided by height squared) of 30 kg/m2 or higher.

Obesity is a growing concern (pun not intended). I have a few suggestions on how to solve this problem, if you disagree, well you know what to do!

1) The overweight people are simply "slagged out of it", i.e. full permission would be given for people to mock or ridicule the unfortunate fatties. Suggested methods of slagging are as follows:
a) verbal abuse
b) a rubber stamp with "fattie" or "please don't eat me" engraved on it would be made available to all healthy people (i.e. people a healthy weight). They could use this stamp as they pleased on the nearest obese person
c) hanging posters of healthy people on the walls as a constant reminder of what they have to achieve

The obese person would become so ashamed that they would eventually be pressured into losing the weight

2) If that didn't work, then the obese people would be forced to work on a reality TV program, named "Fat Camp" or something along the lines of that. In the show the obese people would be put through various army style exercises, while they all lived in a house together or a compound. The camp would be run by a very extreme ex army officer. Not only would this make great TV (it would be big brother fatty style!) it would be providing the facilities for weight loss free of charge. To make the camp more unbearable, if you didn't lose a certain amount of weight every week you would be made run about in a circle after an ice cream van driven by some beautiful thin person. Now if that aint great TV, I don't know what is!
Yraelz

Con

A modest proposal.

Jonathan Swift may have been a brilliant man for his time but he was just that, a man of his time. In a world with growing population concerns we must update the modest proposal to a slightly more appropriate idea. I suggest what shall be called:

A moderate proposal.

The idea is simple and yet solves more efficiently than any idea my opponent has yet to come up with. When a person exceeds 30kg/m2 body mass they shall be given one month to bring their weight back to a healthy standard. Should they not be able to do this, should they not be able to retard their eating to moderate levels, they will be burnt at the stake.

So now everyone must be wondering what could this wonderful plan possibly do better than my opponents plan.

1. It discourages weight gain far more effectively than my opponents plan. Being burnt at the stake is after all rather painful.

2. My plan does not fall into the high school way of simply ridiculing those that we do not like. Where as my opponent's plan advocates for a dehumanization of those who are overweight by placing stamps on them my plan does no such thing. Thus my plan is far more humane.

3. My plan is less expensive to our government. Where as my opponents plan requires the mass production of stamps, healthy posters, and reality T.V shows my plan simply requires a wooden stake and a bale of hay.

4. My opponents plan actually encourages people gaining weight. Through the creation of reality T.V shows my opponent actually is increasing a sedentary life style for all viewers which in turn decreases the amount of aerobic exercise the viewers could be achieving.

5. My plan has a net fiscal return. The large people burned at the stake will chopped up afterwards and sold as a stable and fine delicacy throughout a large portion of the world.

6. My plan prevents world hunger in two ways. 1. The large people now become a food source for our population. 2. It encourages over eating thus more food is conserved through a lack of eating.

7. My plan prevents overpopulation. Through killing off mass amounts of obese people we can see that the world population would undoubtedly fall, lending us an extra couple years of staving off the world overpopulation epidemic that is so eminent. As Thomas Malthus most likely once said,

"The best way to ensure the survival of man is to kill many other men."

8. My plan ensures that humans in the future are more and more healthy. Humans will want to make sure they marry a person with strong genetics in order that their child will not be prone to obese habits. Through this trend we will see healthier human beings.

9. As human being grow healthier and healthier it will become harder and harder for simple activities such as ping pong to offer any type of workout thus humans will begin to participate more and more in extreme activities such as parkour and free running. Before long every human being will be able to do things like this:

10. Eventually technology will increase to a such an extent that we have attained space travel.

11. At this point, due to my plan, and the subsequent health benefits and extreme athletic abilities the average person will be something like this:
Debate Round No. 1
bexy_kelly

Pro

1. "It discourages weight gain far more effectively than my opponents plan. Being burnt at the stake is after all rather painful"
I am an environmentally aware citizen and I must object to the buring of the fatties at stake. It involves using gasoline and wood, which we should be saving. Also its way more fun to ridicule then to kill. Futhermore, the burnt fat would simply rise up into the atmosphere and create more ozone damage (proven by NASA in 2005 you unread fool). If we were to kill the fatties off, then we would have to do it locally, e.g. the throwing of the fat ones into the volcanos in Hawii, or the "blubber bashing" of the fat ones in Canada, a more appropriate alternative to seals, which are cute.

2. We are not talking about being "humane" here. We are talking about The Growing Problem. Being humane has nothing to do with it. I am simply suggesting a solution to the problem which is also hilarious at the same time.

3. As I have said previously, the wooden stake is what we should be saving. If you were to kill them off, it would be better done locally. The transportation of all the fat people to the burning area would probably crack the pavement under the weight, creating more cost for the government. Also cleaning up the mess of the burnt bodies would be quite costly and unenvironmental. In this "green era" that we live in, the environment must come in somewhere.

4. Televisions will soon be powered by the kinetic energy created by people using bicycle machienes, not only better for the environment but better for the people aswell! And they would be so shocked at seeing someone so fat and being so humiliated that they would start exercising straightaway to make sure that they wern't on the show next

5. The edibility of the obese people is questionable. Dr. Fredriko Kawashiama conducted an experiment in the year 2003 proving that the eating of obese people inserts the "obese nature syndrome" into your brain, causing the eater, TO BECOME OBESE. That is simply multiplying the problem, creatinbg more fat people to be done away with!

6. Your plan may solve world hunger, but it does not solve the environmental issues of transporting and packaging the weight of the fat. The fat would have no nutritional value, therefore making the hungry countries less hungry but more malnourished. The obese people would soon run out, therefore making the hungry people who would then be so used to getting the food angry that they have now suddenly got no food. The riots and destruction would be collassal

7. Your plan does not prevent overpopulation. Sending food to the hungry countries only encourages them to have more children, seeing as they now have a food source. To combat overpopulation one must leave the hungry people die of hunger.

8. Your plan will not work. I have studied the genetics of obese people for the past 59 years (a major feat seeing as I am only 16!) and it shows that they have an annoying habit of appearing in a mutated form in even people who have never had obese parentage.
http://www.exploration-of-the-blubber.com...

So therefore your last few points are flawed

Plus: the killing of the obese people would only serve to cause riots worldwide. Imagine, even just 10 obese people can cause monumental damage while waddling down the street. Think of the innocents that would be squished, the cars crunched up like can's of red bull, the cracks and possible holes on the pavements, the chuncks taken out of brown buildings caused by the individuals who thought they were in "chocolate land". The cost of repairing this would be estimated at about $400,000,000,000,000,000 Trillion, and that is just for the general repair of one street, rampaged by 10 obese people. Do you want to see your friends and family in smithereens scattered accross the wall, simply because of a riot thought up by YOU? Well? DO YOU?!
Yraelz

Con

Each point in turn.

1. I am rather appalled that my opponent thought I meant that I wanted to burn people at the stake with gasoline and wood. This not only would be sick but also very very wrong. When I said being burnt at the stake I meant that these people would be tied to a stake and sun burnt until death.

2. My opponent concedes that my way is more humane. Thus if at the end of this debate the reader is undecided it will be best to vote for my case, as my case is undoubtedly more humane.

3. I must once again push the fact that my plan is less expensive. The wooden stake can be reused for each body that is burnt, also it can be done locally and the meat can be sold. Thus less expensive.

4. Ah, a feasible idea to say the least. Unfortunately the bicycle kinetic converting energy machine costs quite a deal of money. In fact my old school purchased them for upwards of 1 grand each. The only way my opponent can claim this advantage is by actually handing each person 1000 dollars. Otherwise people will ride their normal bicycles at which point they will see the obese people being burnt at the stake in real life and ride their bicycles more.

5. Once again I find myself horrifying appalled.... My opponent thought that I wanted to have other humans eating the burnt obese persons. When I stated, "The large people now become a food source for our population.", I did not mean our human population, I quite clearly was referring to our dog population. This of course would only be for very wealthy owners, and would have the benefit of conserving normal dog food for less wealthy owners.

6. Transporting mass quantities of fat would simply be ludicrous. The fat would stay on the stake where it began, exercising rich people on their bicycles would take their dogs to the fat people to eat. This would solve for world hunger (dog hunger obviously) considering the fact that dogs do not need a great deal of nutrition in the first place (dog food). It would also have the benefit of solving for some human hunger considering the fact that the obese people would no longer be devouring hamburgers 24/7.

7. My plan undoubtedly prevents overpopulation. My plan kills many people and then feeds dogs with those people. How could this not stem overpopulation?

8. Finally on my points my opponent points out that gene mutations will allow the obese genes to keep resurfacing. I do not deny this fact, but it will become the only way, something my opponent doesn't seem to realize. In the status quo the obese genes surface in two ways. 1. Through mutations. 2. Through obese people breeding. Thus after the passage of my plan only option 1. will still occur. This will in turn mean that the obese gene will appear significantly less frequently. Which will of course lead to the extra fitness I mentioned earlier. Combined with points 9 and 10 which my opponent dropped we will see a world of Jedi!

11. This is a point my opponent added. She states that the obese people would become angry on passage of my plan and cause riots. Sadly my opponent seems not to have realized that the same is true of her plan. Ridiculing the obese to the point of dehumanization and then forcing them to do things against their will will also cause these riots. In fact, my opponents case will cause these riots more than mine because my case is more humane, therefor the obese will be happier with my case.
Debate Round No. 2
bexy_kelly

Pro

1. Burning people to death with sunburn is no less wrong then burning them with gasoline and wood. In fact, it is more wrong, as the agony is prolonged. AND you didn't address my point about my method being more environmentally friendly. Also its waaaay more fun to ridicule then to kill. So I win this point.

2. I do NOT conciede that your method is more humane. In fact it is less humane - it is more humane to be ridiculed then to be killed off. Thus I urge the voters to vote PRO as MY method is more humane.

3. Your still using wood - which we should be saving, not using. And the meat would not be bought, as you have offered no proof as to why dogs need less nutrients then humans. I now state that they require the same balance of nutrients that humans do. Rich people arnt as dumb as you think they are. They'de see through your scam!

4. Yup, I'de atually hand each person 1000 dollars. I'de be in severe debt, but I'll do anything to win a debate. So I claim this advantage :D

5. "The large people now become a food source for OUR population" if you did not mean humans, are you claiming to be a DOG? Your did refer to OUR population. But I will now claim by "our" you do not mean me and you, you are refering to your imaginary friend. Vote PRO, the drooling beast clearly has lost it's mind, now having an imaginary friend, and it can only bark. Sit, down boy!

6. There are very small dog hunger issues. And as you are a dog yourself you cant say there is, you can only bark. Woof woof, good boy!

7. Your plan will simply encourage overpopulation in dogs (they now suddenly have enough food to have 18 puppies each). So your plan is hypocritical, killing off one group and creating overpopulation in another.

8. My method will make people laugh alot more, cos its absalutly hilarious. Laughing exercises the stomach muscles, which burns off fat. So my method will encourage fitness more ANYWAY, because people will be laughing so much they'll get fit from it

11. I have previously proven that my method is more humane. So the obese will be more happy with my method
Yraelz

Con

Alrighty, time to attack each issue in turn.

1. My opponent begins by stating that sun-burning people to death at the stake is far more cruel than simply burning them to death at the stake. This is blatantly untrue, luckily for the people being sunburned to death at the stake they will doubtlessly become sleep deprived and thereby will end up falling asleep at which point the combined factors of lack of food, water, and sunburns will kill them. Thus they will die in their sleep, as every good person wants to.

My opponent goes on to state that I never addressed his environmentally friendly method, however this is also untrue. I quite clearly advocated sunburning them to death because it would take absolutely no wood, gasoline, or anything else for that matter. My plan uses natural forces to humanely kill many people. It has no adverse environmental effects. The same cannot be said of my opponents plan.

And finally, the issue that this point all began with. My plan more effectively dissuades people from becoming overweight. This of course is the ultimate impact in round.

2. First off I would like to point out that my opponent completely dropped this point in her second speech thereby agreeing, thus we should not even consider this. However my opponents attack on this in her final round didn't bother refuting anyways. All she says is, "

"In fact it is less humane - it is more humane to be ridiculed then to be killed off."

This being in response to my extensive elaboration on how being ridiculed is akin to high school and dehumanizes the obese people to a point of no return. In all reality being dehumanized is far worse than simply being killed. My opponent never refutes this, thus my opponent has conceded that my plan is more humane.

3. My opponent begins by pushing for the fact that my plan must cost more because it uses wood. This is not true as the same wood is used on each obese person, thus we never actually use up any wood.

Then my opponent goes on to make an unsubstantiated claim that dogs require just as much nutrition as humans. If this were true then dogs would need to be eating a balanced diet of 5 fruits and vegetables per day, 3 helpings of poultry, and 7 servings of bread, as I do not see this happening it is readily apparent that a dog does not require as much nutrition as a human.

Finally on this point, even if an obese person is nutrition lacking many of their organs will contain a great deal of fiber that will indeed be healthy, thus rich people will buy it for dog food.

Point: My plan costs $0 and actually makes money.

4. My opponent plans to hand each person $1000 dollars. Considering that there are about 6.5 billion people on this earth my opponent is advocating giving out 6.5 trillion dollars, an amount of money which I'm rather certain she doesn't have. Nor does any government that I happen to know of that currently exists. To do such an action would doubtlessly plunge the United States below the poverty level.

Thus such a vast amount of money cannot be given to each person.

Furthermore my opponent simply states,

"Yup, I'de atually hand each person 1000 dollars."

Sadly I doubt each person would actually take that 1000 dollars and buy an electric power generating bike, not to mention I do not believe there are 6.5 billion of those bikes currently in existence. Thus my opponents plan is an impossibility.

5. Obviously my opponent is disillusioned. I quite clearly stated, "OUR dog population" in my last round. I do not have an imaginary friend nor am I a drooling beast. Please ignore my opponents ad hominem attacks on me.

6. Obviously my opponent has not taken the time to look at some dogs in third world countries. Like this one: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk...

These dogs can, and should be helped.

7. Your right, my plan will encourage overpopulation in dogs. This will of course be used to train entire dog armies. Humans will never have to die again, millions of dogs will be sent at opposing nations. A great day it will be.

8. I'm not sure where my opponent is coming from with this one. I personally do not know of very many people who would laugh to see others dehumanized, perhaps this is what my opponent and her friends do on a regular bases. However even if my opponent could gaurantee this benefit there is still going to be the obese genes in bountiful quantities in my opponents world after passage of plan. In my world there will be very few obese genes, not to mention people will ride their bikes more.

Also, my opponent drops my entire line of argument stating that people with less obese genes will require more exercise to stay fit to avoid the harm of being sunburned to death.

9-10. And of course my opponent completely ignores that this will lead to a world of amazing Jedi's, a planet that will truly be able to defend itself from alien invasion.

11. I have previously proven that my method is more humane. Therefor the obese people would go on rampages more after passage of my opponents plan. Which would lead to unsurmountable damages.

Vote Con, the alternative solves better, costs less money (costs negative money), solves world hunger, solves dog hunger, creates a dog army, creates a Jedi army, and ultimately makes people happy.
Debate Round No. 3
bexy_kelly

Pro

Unfortunatly I dont have alot of time, so this will have to be short.

1. I am still pressing the point that sunburning people to death is less humane then burning them to death. Being sunburnt to death is a prolonged slow killing. They would slowly die in about 3 days. Its better to have the ridiculing. And how would you sunburn them to death? Without tying them to something? or dumping them in a desert? Transporting the people would still be affecting the environment.

My plan is beter, because not only does it dissuade people from becoming obese more effectively, it's very funny at the same time

2. "In all reality being dehumanized is far worse than simply being killed". No it isn't! Your still alive arn't you? Your not just carted off and killed like some animal! So MY method is more humane, it is far kinder to the fatties then the harshness of being killed off.

3. Dogs DO require just as much nutrition as humans, but not the same type of Nutrition. They still need Proteins, Amino Acids, Fats and Fatty Acids, Vitamins and Minerals. The obese people would simply not provide this and would not create a healthy balanced diet for dogs.

And your still using wood, as unless you transported everyone to the same place and used the same stake of wood your going to still use wood. This would have serious implications for the unfortunate area (manholes etc.)

4. 6.5 Billion people on this earth. Yes thats true, but not all of these people even have a T.V. In fact most of them acnt afford one. So they wouldnt be watching the show anyway. Only people with T.V's would have to get the kinetic bicycle machiene, and they are in a minority anyway. So its not an impossibility, you dont know how much money I could have. So its a slight possibility, therefore I win this one :P

Also Did You Know that only 1% of the total population owns a computer? I cannot imagine this figure being alot higher for TV ownership.

5. Well, prove it then! You are SO a dog. Good boy! Sit... SIT!

6. This point is simply not valied seeing as you are a dog. I couldnt read it through all the drool and paw marks. So not only are you a dog, but a sloppy one at that.

7. Dog armies eh? Dogs would be incapable at fighting as well as humans, even if trained from birth the animals would not create a substantial army. And anyway, in wars and such, this would mean that the invading dogs would probably go through the opposing contrys villages and such. It would be incredibly easy to stop the attack, as all you would have to do was shout "here boy, come get some bacon!" and the entire army would collapse. You must agree with this, being a dog yourself (and how did they teach you to type? you had almost fooled me into thinking you were a human back there)

8. "I'm not sure where my opponent is coming from with this one" well clearly YOU wouldn't, your a dog! Vote Pro, this dog clearly needs to be taken on a looong walk

9-10 These points are ignored as your plan has no guarentee that it will lead to a Jedi Nation. So they are simply irrelevant

Vote Pro, or you will simply prove that this website has (literally) gone to the dogs.

And thanks Yraelz for an exciting debate :D
Yraelz

Con

Sadly I am not in the most of jovial moods tonight so hopefully my points do not come across sounding to serious in such a light hearted debate. Sorry if they do.

1. My opponent once again argues that being killed is worse than being ridiculed to the point of dehumanization. However in this contention my opponent still takes no stock with my logic behind my claim, that being: Killing is better because it does not dehumanize. Thus, as this claim still stands my point does.

It should be noted that my opponent does not attack the claim that the obese people die peacefully in their sleep. This is a benefit.

=========
2. This is actually where my opponent takes stock with the issue. She states,

"No it isn't! Your still alive arn't you? Your not just carted off and killed like some animal! So MY method is more humane, it is far kinder to the fatties then the harshness of being killed off."

I find myself in strong opposition. To be dehumanized means that you no longer possess the qualities of a human. You are not better than a common everyday animal. To live a life like this is far worse than simply being killed off. At least if you die you can die with dignity, to be dehumanized is to die in shame. There are some things worth than death, to lose what it means to be human but not truly be gone is one of them.

=========
3. The obese persons organs will contain many of the things that dogs require as I pointed out in my last round. Thus the dogs will be fed. The dogs will be happy.

Considering my plan reuses the same stake multiple times it actually costs almost nothing per each obese person burned. And of course the obese persons are sold as dog food thus my plan pays for itself and makes a great deal of money.

=========
4. My opponent admits that her fourth point is a very slight possibility. She however goes on to state that this means she wins it. Such is not true. Considering there is a very slight chance of this actually happening she cannot claim the benefit because the benefit probably will not happen. This would be like me jumping from a cliff and relying on a sudden rain storm to create a pool of water at the bottom. While it has a small chance of happening to rely on such would be almost certain death.

=========
5. I'm still talking about our dog population whether I am a dog or not.

=========
6. Obviously my point about starving dogs still stands as my opponent is once again seeing things (paw marks? drool?).

=========
7. My opponent seems to be under the impression that dogs could never make a legitimate army. Let's see....

a. They can run faster than us.
b. They have natural weapons far more potent than ours (claws, teeth)
c. They can make noises far louder than ours (barking).
d. They can be subjected into doing most anything.

Given enough training dogs would be able to make a rather fearsome army that would be quite capable of ignoring people shouting, "here boy, come get some bacon!" This would have the benefit of humans never having to go to war again. Yay!

=========
8. My opponent fails to prove that people enjoy seeing others dehumanized, thus people would not watch my opponents show and people would be far more obese than they are under my plan.

=========
9-10. Once again my opponent drops these points and thereby concedes that in my world people will be more fit and will become Jedi. This is the ultimate advantage of my plan. This is a reason to vote Con.

Voters:

1. My plan is more cost effective.
2. My plan better saves the environment as my opponent cannot claim the electricity bikes as a benefit.
3. My plan better deters people from becoming obese.
4. My plan solves for dog starvation.
5. My plan solves for human overpopulation.
6. My plan creates a dog army.
7. My plan stops human vs human wars in place of dog vs. dog wars.
8. My plan creates a race of Jedi, capable of defending ourselves from alien attacks.

Thank you all.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
I wish Yraelz hadn't left. He was a great debater. I've read some comments saying that he really isn't gone, but you really can't know for sure. I do have my suspicions however...
Posted by zdog234 8 years ago
zdog234
I personally think that con's argument is sick and demented, but since the resolution was not very specific, and since con's plan is better and sounds more effective (although I can't believe that pro didn't argue that burning extra material will speed up global warming.) I vote con.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I believe I have to get a new computer chair,... and pants.

Thanks for a hilarious and spirited debate!!
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
glad you enjoyed it brian eggleston. Your debates are hilarious aswell :D
Posted by psynthesizer 9 years ago
psynthesizer
Yraelz, I fell over laughing at points 5-8.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

parkour is coolz. like tricking and running had a baby (though I think parkour came first...)
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
In response to brydabest2008:

If it were winter right now you could almost say I do not have much of a life and you would almost be correct as it is summer you could not say such a thing.

Currently and for the last year now my greatest hobby has been parkour, while I am not as good as the people in the video I am about to post, you can still see the physically demanding aspect of the art.

P.S for anyone interested in actually learning parkour, here is my favorite video:

Back on topic. Aside from parkour I love running, another one of those things I unfortunately do not do in the winter. Entertaining enough my love of running actually stems from the fact that many people I admire in life are runners and I consider it to require an immense amount of work to be good at.

I also thoroughly enjoy hiking and cliff jumping (however I won't start doing this again until another couple weeks when the water is suitably warm), cliff jumping of course involves swimming.

Let's see.... there's probably something I'm missing but I suppose those 4 examples are probably good. I consider myself to be somewhat in shape year round, not quite obese.

Would those fall under your definition of living life?
Posted by brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
Suggest you ignore the previous comment...I laughed so much I nearly passed my smokes round!
Posted by brydabest2008 9 years ago
brydabest2008
you guys should probably get lives..that would probably decrease obese people.i dont care if i dont make sense.i live life.and i love it.try it its nice.swim and fite obesity by not sitn on the computer making debates.and for your information im not home im in the school doing a project...pause NOT!!! get a life debate freaks
Posted by bexy_kelly 9 years ago
bexy_kelly
whoops. want meant to be lol
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Why is this debate 4 rounds long!!!?!@?!?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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 Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by zdog234 8 years ago
zdog234
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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 bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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 cooljpk 9 years ago
cooljpk
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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 XxdarknessxX 9 years ago
XxdarknessxX
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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 SweetBags 9 years ago
SweetBags
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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 brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
bexy_kellyYraelzTied
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