The Instigator
jmlandf
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
USAPitBull63
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

Standardized Spelling and Grammar has and is gone and going to far.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 9/11/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,768 times Debate No: 5355
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (13)

 

jmlandf

Pro

I believe standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language, both written and spoken has gone to far in regulation.

I will type words how I want, with out spell check. I expext my opponent being, CON, will present his arguements with proper spelling and gramar, unlike me.

Contentions1 Standardized spelling not necessary for informal communication
Standardized spelling and grammar is acceptable for formal situations, such as a letter from the President of the United States, but should not be required for something less informal such as an email, memo, or argument on Debate.org.

Contentions2 Spelling NAZIs are generally annoying
This pretty much goes with out saying but I will say it either way.

Contentions3 Standardized Spelling can generally exclude some people
Some people with a lot to communicate don't get heard fairly because they simply have a few errors in the communication. This isn't fair.

In the words of Mark Twain
" I have had an aversion to good spelling for sixty years and more, merely for the reason that when I was a boy there was not a thing I could do creditably except spell according to the book. It was a poor and mean distinction and I early learned to disenjoy it. I suppose that this is because the ability to spell correctly is a talent, not an acquirement. There is some dignity about an acquirement, because it is a product of your own labor. It is wages earned, whereas to be able to do a thing merely by the grace of God and not by your own effort transfers the distinction to our heavenly home--where possibly it is a matter of pride and satisfaction but it leaves you naked and bankrupt."
- Mark Twain's Autobiography
USAPitBull63

Con

The inherent flaw to the premise of your argument is in your presumption that the language regulates itself, or has some official regulatory agency. None exists because the language is what it is (even if agencies help codify rules, spellings, etc.); any regulatory consequences of misspellings and anti-grammarians, however, are decided and implemented (or perhaps even imposed) by individuals on an independent-judgment basis--not by the language itself.

If one does not like the "standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language" then one may pursue the rules and spelling of many other languages currently in existence throughout the world. In fact, if one truly had initiative, one could make his or her own language and never have to worry about being deemed "incorrect"—so long as one made this aspect of the neophyte language a fundamental foundation of the vernacular and its governance.

But I digress.

To claim something has "gone too far" is to allege that something steps out of its own boundaries; that something has offended its own accepted terms of existence and somehow persecuted or victimized another in the process.

Yet you defeat your own argument [or the facet of it that I stated just above] that "standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language" have gone "to[o] far" in declaring your free will to "type words how [you] want, with out spell check." Ergo, in your independence you exhibit no persecution from the language itself upon you; this, in turn, diminishes your accusation that the standardized spelling and grammar of said language have "gone to[o] far."

If you receive punishment or scrutiny for misspelling words or misplacing modifiers, for example, then it is the sole judgment of the individual(s) under whose authority you are subordinate; in other words, the correct spellings and grammatical usage rules do not chase you down, bang on your door, intimidate you with riots and threatening phone calls, or even correct themselves. Rather, another individual has decided that the correct usage of the language is more important than the exercise of your allegedly liberated sense of depicting it.

So blame the individuals, not the language. Hate the player, not the game.

In direct response to your contentions:

[1] Who literally forces—thus, going "to[o] far"—you to use correct spelling and grammar in your informal sentences anyway? Perhaps, rather than blaming the language and its usage rules, you should find better friends.

[2] "Spelling NAZIs are generally annoying This pretty much goes with out saying but I will say it either way." I may agree, though I would add, perhaps not as annoying as willfully, flamboyantly lazy language-welfare recipients.

[3] Again, if you accept the terms of the game, you accept the consequences of playing by those terms. If an individual independently chooses not to listen to you because of a grammatical error in your oral communication, for example, it is that individual with whom you have a problem—not with the language itself. Don't shoot the messenger.

Lastly, I will use your very own quote from Mark Twain to make my final counterpoint:

"[T]he ability to spell correctly is a talent, not an acquirement."

Perhaps, Mr. Twain. But even if I concede that as true, one thing the quote fails to mention is that talent is malleable; put differently, one can still work to better and strengthen one's talents over time, if the right attitude and commitment to do so exists.

One may be a very talented drummer, but it takes practice and experience over time to fine-tune that talent; the same goes with the vast majority of other available talents, including spelling and grammatical usage.

Thus, in conclusion, for the reasons I stated above, the "standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language, both written and spoken" have NOT "gone to[o] far in regulation." Rather, my opponent's discomfort with the language, but more likely, his willing acceptance of sub-standard performance of it, is the true root of his discontent.

I urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 1
jmlandf

Pro

A standard language (also standard dialect or standardized dialect) is a particular variety of a language that has been given either legal or quasi-legal status. As it is usually the form promoted in schools and the media, it is usually considered by speakers of the language to be more "correct" in some sense than other dialects.

Well my opponent is well worded but for the voting audience I would like to reitterate that he has gone to law school and may be a lawyer. You know what they say about Lawyers, don't you.....Need I say more? probably not..... but I will.

Anyway, I got an email in the office the other day. A co-worker had cat spelled kat. I immediately went to grab a weapon, gun or something. I was going to let this guy have it. I mean he either is too STUPID or did it intentional, both an abomination of spelling. Then something came over me and I realized that I have believed the retoric of all the "spelling Nazis".

Contention 4 WASTE of valuable TIME
I have no reason to judge this slight spelling error, infact I don't think we should even call it an error. Spelling words and performing gramar correctly is just a nusiance. As long as I have effectively communicated, their really isnt a need to readdress it. Of course every effort should be maid to spell words corectly but if not oh well.

Contention 5 Standardized spelling errors have been punished to severly
The "spelling Nazis" have done it again.....Killed someone for spelling something wrong. Sorry I can't remember the reference to back this up, but you can trust me. Seriously the "spelling Nazis" have encouraged others to mock poor defensless individuals with little spelling erors. These Nazis have denied jobs to people and justified their since of betterment than the rest. Sic this Sic that. A little Sic, sic here, a little more condensending sic here.

And I will leave a few more words from Mark Twain and a link to an interesting article.

http://news.yahoo.com...

...simplified spelling is all right, but, like chastity, you can carry it too far.
- The Alphabet and Simplified Spelling speech, December 9, 1907

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing. I have a correspondent whose letters are always a refreshment to me, there is such a breezy unfettered originality about his orthography. He always spells Kow with a large K. Now that is just as good as to spell it with a small one. It is better. It gives the imagination a broader field, a wider scope. It suggests to the mind a grand, vague, impressive new kind of a cow.
- speech at a spelling match, Hartford, Connecticut, May 12, 1875. Reported in the Hartford Courant, May 13, 1875

I was almost tempted to spell check this, Ha ha
USAPitBull63

Con

One's mindfulness toward correct spelling and grammar teaches one diligence, awareness, good judgment, attention to detail, and respect for all of the above.

Your anecdote about your coworker spelling "kat" in an e-mail (while not regarding half of a particular candy bar) was amusing. But perhaps you hadn't "believed the rhetoric of all the ‘spelling Nazis' " in wanting to correct the error; perhaps instead your instinct was to help raise your colleague's performance level, for his own benefit.

Your example of penance toward your Ko-worker also exposed another flaw in your rationale. Before you calmed down, you stated that you wanted to "grab a weapon, gun or something" in response to reading the egregious error; while you used hyperbole in your description, the emphasis of your emotion was evident. This begs the question: How many other employers, constituents, and/or consumers would be so forgiving? And better yet: Why risk it?

Even if forgiveness abounds, how soon would that employee get promoted, or put in charge of company communications? How soon before that employee becomes a liability because of his potential damage to the company's hard-earned, respectable image and brand? While you showed mercy to your associate, you may have been doing more harm than having shown him the error of his ways—and in turn motivating him to improve his performance for optimal future opportunity and personal growth.

To your fourth contention, many people do forgive spelling errors; but despite all the forgiveness, the risk of someday facing the unforgiving is ever-present; and to simply permit, or even embrace, such slovenly spelling and grammar among peers is to invite them into potential disaster with just one false step.

(After all, spelling correctly is harmless, too.)

As for your fifth contention, if you're going to accuse a single misspelling of inciting a belligerent mob of Nazis to murder, you need to cite some evidence. Making such an accusation (I think) with the support of "I can't remember the reference to back this up, but you can trust me"—just doesn't cut it.

Or, if I accept your unsubstantiated claim of fact, I could similarly state how correct spelling is actually the secret to world peace, which will likely be used to end all wars, feed all hungry, and shelter all homeless within the next few years. I cannot prove it yet, but I'm good for it.

In the end, you still cannot get past the fact that individuals—whether collectively or in random, one-by-one bases—decide whether or not to correct spellings and grammatical errors. You are unsatisfied with the consequences of an individual's judgment toward someone who may not spell terrifically or exhibit flawless grammar. You feel it unfair that one displays the audacity to prefer an established standard of correctness than to allow free-spirited "variant spellings" based on good intentions.

Moreover, you seem to defend victimization-by-one's-own-inefficiency; perhaps if fewer people would settle for substandard performance, they wouldn't have to worry about all the spelling-bee bullies to whom you alluded.

Being able to communicate without spelling correctly is not the issue of this debate; yes, one can often spell incorrectly and still convey meaning. But that unfairly burdens those who already worked hard to improve and perfect their own spelling and grammar—and they should not be forced to pick up the slack of careless language-welfare recipients.

The TIME article was good for a chuckle and a headache. After reading it, am I supposed to believe that because one professor in England doesn't feel like working harder—that correcting spelling errors is somehow morally reprehensible, or time wasted?

In the second paragraph, the article writes: "Smith adds that when teachers correct spelling, they waste valuable time they could be spending on bigger ideas." Forgive me and millions of others for believing that NOT rationalizing laziness, or rewarding inefficiency, IS a big idea that deserves to be championed by consistent adherence to what is right.

If a collegiate student in a math class were to keep suggesting that 2x2 is something other than 4, would the professor eventually just concede that student's special way of solving the problem so that "bigger ideas" could be addressed? Absolutely not.

The example of "a lot" is sufficient evidence of why changing the spelling to "alot" would change the language itself. A lot is actually two words. A ball. A game. A player. A pizza. A lot. A lot for parking is where my car currently resides. A lot of some particular item results in a bunch (yet there is not clamoring for the word "abunch").

The last line in the article reads: " ‘In the 21st century, why learn by heart rote spelling when you can just type it into a computer and spell-check?' [the professor] asks." As a teacher myself, this is the same line of thought that I struggle to dissuade 15-year-olds from lazily adopting. For one, the spell-check is not always correct; nor does it always suggest the right word. This is akin to allowing students to blindly cite anything from Wikipedia as 100% credible secondary-source material.

This placating to inferior work ethic fosters a culture of laziness and lack of self-advocacy that society would be weaker for encouraging.

It doesn't matter what two people who hated spelling thought 150 years ago; many brilliant and influential minds thought slavery was a good idea during that time, too—but that didn't make it right (nor does it now).

Two final questions:
(1) What does me having gone to law school, or possibly being a lawyer, have to do with anything?
(2) Who are "they" and what do they say about lawyers? And what relevance does it (or they) have to this debate?

It doesn't matter if I'm Thurgood Marshall or Marshall Mathers; if I adequately and reasonably refute your resolution, I deserve to win the round. What doesn't matter is my profession, or even if I'm unemployed—so long as I adequately refute the resolution and your arguments (which, so far, I have).

Besides, if you had read my profile thoroughly, you would have read that I am a teacher. Perhaps your cavalier attitude toward correct spelling and grammar has negatively influenced your reading comprehension, as well.

Thanks again for demonstrating my point perfectly.

Why should correctness be sacrificed for incorrectness? Why should people "play down" to lesser spellers, instead of challenging them to raise their game?

The fact is, this should not happen. Correcting one's spelling and grammar is not "going to[o] far." For all of these reasons, I urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 2
jmlandf

Pro

"One's mindfulness toward correct spelling and grammar teaches one diligence, awareness, good judgment, attention to detail, and respect for all of the above."

One's judgement toward incorrect spelling and gramar teaches intolerance, legalism, egotism, arogance, and an inflated since of self worth.

I believe the correct stance is my resolution. Standardized spelling has gone to far. This isn't to say it should be wisped away, simply many words should have varient spelling. If standardized spelling had not gone toooo far we would cetainly be able to have LESS judgement on seemingly intelligent people who simply don't prioritize correct spelling to the degree of, lets say a spelling Nazi. This is why I urge a Pro Vote.

"Even if forgiveness abounds....How soon before that employee becomes a liability because of his potential damage to the company's hard-earned, respectable image and brand...While you showed mercy to your associate, you may have been doing more harm than having shown him the error of his ways—and in turn motivating him to improve his performance for optimal future opportunity and personal growth.....the risk of someday facing the unforgiving is ever-present; and to simply permit, or even embrace, such slovenly spelling and grammar among peers is to invite them into potential disaster with just one false step."

This is certainly true, however this is only because standardized spelling has gone to far. If standardized spelling would accept many more alternative spellings then the errors would no longer be errors but also correct. This CHANGE doesn't hurt anybody but infact prevents your example.

"As for your fifth contention, if you're going to accuse a single misspelling of inciting a belligerent mob of Nazis to murder, you need to cite some evidence."

My opponent, you, are quite correct indeed, in deed. I don't have evidence persay but what about the MURDERING of dreams and ambitions, certainly you concede standardized spelling has achieved this. Lets say someone applyies for a job, and inadverdantly spells February, Febuary. This someone is perfectly able to do the job, the best for the job, however Standardized Spelling has not allowed this varient or alternative spelling of Febuary, excuse me February thus the applicant is thrown out by a "spelling Nazi". Standardized Spelling has gone to far, but you, my opponent, would rather refer to this someone as a "careless language-welfare recipient". Careless perhaps but one should not be so burdened with such strict spelling laws and their over inflated since of worth as bestowed upon them by the spelling nazis.

NOTE: The lawyer bit was just a joke, I do see you are a Teacher and it has nothing to do with the debate.

Contention 6 In regard to spelling "Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing"

My son rights (writes) in his journal " to Day at school was HoraBol Becas the techr laft sowe mach Becas we have P.E. and I love P.E. its my favrt subjct"

Can you tell he is my son? What he may have actually been trying to communicate "Today at school was horrible because the teacher laughed so much. My teachers laugh makes me feel uncomfortable because I am confused by her ability to show signs of being human, as I don't much regard her as human, I'm 6. Well, I'm not being completely honest because we did have P.E. today, and I love P.E.."

Now certainly I would like, my son, to be a better speller than me, given standardized spelling has gone to far, and their is a lot of different interpretations of what he may be trying to communicate, which is of importance, however this quote offers a "breezy unfettered originality about his orthography" as Mark Twain would say. Standardized spelling takes the "JAZZ" out of the writen word.

"This placating to inferior work ethic fosters a culture of laziness and lack of self-advocacy that society would be weaker for encouraging...It doesn't matter what two people who hated spelling thought 150 years ago; many brilliant and influential minds thought slavery was a good idea during that time, too—but that didn't make it right (nor does it now)."

Funny how you equate Slavery views 150 years ago, to mine, when infact history is simply repeating itself. You see I, we, are a Slave to overburdening standardized spelling rules and regulations......Truly Liberty has been lost in the case of spelling.
USAPitBull63

Con

By your rationale, basically anytime someone is corrected, it exhibits arrogance, egotism, legalism, and intolerance on behalf of the critic—and even "murders" someone else's dream.

But the crux of your flawed rationale is that you confuse negligence as tolerance.

This is revealed by applying your standard to other actions and jobs:

The owner of a restaurant bursts through the door to fire the dishwasher because his performance is shoddy, at best; cleaning the dishes thoroughly is what's considered "right" or "correct." Yet by your rationale, the dishwasher should be allowed to wash some dishes less thoroughly than others ("variant cleanliness" perhaps) because chastising his overall performance might "MURDER…[his] dreams and ambitions"—possibly worse than having his spelling corrected.

A surgeon stitches up a patient after surgery, but skips some suture positions; the patient later wants to sue for malpractice, and the hospital wants to release this doctor and possibly call for license revocation. However, with your rationale applied to this situation, the patient should be careful because such criticism and legal action might "take…the JAZZ out of the [wound-suturing procedure]."

If you think I'm taking your rationale to an extreme, that's fine: that would also prove my point. Correcting spelling and grammatical errors is NOT an act of life and death, nor does it regularly place individuals receiving constructive criticism in unsafe, dangerous, or threatening situations and environments.

Therefore, it does NOT go too far. Standardized spelling is what it is. Again, hate the player, not the game. Or else don't play.

You said: "If standardized spelling would accept many more alternative spellings then the errors would no longer be errors but also correct. This CHANGE doesn't hurt anybody but infact prevents your example."

To quote, well, myself: "[S]pelling correctly is harmless, too." Spelling correctly, in fact, is less harmful than even variant spelling or placation to/acceptance of it.

I suspected that your lawyer/law school comment was a joke; I just had no idea how it was relevant to the debate. I'm glad to see you acknowledged any such relevance was nonexistent.

To your sixth contention, variety isn't so pleasing when it forces one to take the slack of those not willing to work as hard or be as diligent.

As to your son's journal entry: I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but as you wrote his thoughts, it seemed like his teacher was laughing at the fact that the students had Physical Education—not at his spelling. After all, the teacher laughed so much "Becas we have P.E." There you have it; it seems your (hopefully very, very young) son's teacher thinks P.E. is a lot funnier than spelling and grammatical errors.

You also said: "[O]ne should not be so burdened with such strict spelling laws and their over inflated since of worth as bestowed upon them by the spelling nazis."

That said, one should be EVEN LESS burdened to "dumb down" one's own hard work and discipline (with learning and practicing correct spelling and grammar) to better placate the hurt feelings of those not willing to do the same.

With avid reading comes a better comprehension of spelling and grammar; I favor allowing prospective employers an opportunity to sense which potential employees are better read, or better prepared to not publicly embarrass the company if communication via said employee becomes, or already is, an asset.

And if the problem is a learning disability, then such information is submitted and considered for employment, as well. But to say an employer would be wrong for considering basic knowledge important in deciding whom to hire, is ludicrous.

As to your response to my first rebuttal comment on slavery:

So we should replace allegedly being slaves "to overburdening standardized spelling rules and regulations"—with being slaves to the hurt feelings of those who cannot handle the expectation of diligence, discipline, and excellence? Substituting one form of slavery (by your own admission) for another would not likely solve anything.

No real problem exists, but it one did, it would not be fixed by merely replacing your alleged "Spelling Nazis" with Spelling Trotskyists.

For all of these reasons, I have continued to demonstrate why current standardized spelling and grammar in the United States English language, both written and spoken, have NOT gone too far in regulation.

I urge a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
Well, again, I'm just saying its gone too far, not that it isn't important. Even if there only a few words that deserve revision or two acceptable spellings than I've proven the point. February doesn't need an extra R, does it now?
Posted by Miserlou 8 years ago
Miserlou
Agree with RoyLatham; when people use bad spelling and grammar then it's hard for others to understand what you're talking about. I think pro said something to the effect of "if I've communicated correctly, what does it matter if I've spelled something wrong?" That's true, but know you run the risk of seeming unintelligent
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Neither side pressed the point that the purpose of language is communication. The issue could be then framed as to whether or not standardization promotes communication. I think it does, for the same reason that Morse Code was standardized.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
"Perhaps your cavalier attitude toward correct spelling and grammar has negatively influenced your reading comprehension, as well."

Pro gets my conduct vote.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
don't you mean spelling notsee?
Posted by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
I actually really enjoyed reading this debate. Heck, I even enjoyed the lawyer joke.
Posted by USAPitBull63 8 years ago
USAPitBull63
Thank you for the kind words. I had fun with this, too. You have a fascinating life story, from what I read, and I wish you and yours all the best...except with the outcome of this debate. :)
Posted by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
Dear Kind Opponent, You have been perfect for this Debate. My wife is a "spelling Nazi", though she wouldn't agree with the term, and she and I appreciate your view.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by followhard 7 years ago
followhard
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
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 Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
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 spinnerclotho 8 years ago
spinnerclotho
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
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 Miserlou 8 years ago
Miserlou
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
jmlandfUSAPitBull63Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14