The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
gahbage
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points

Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save

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: 5/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,390 times Debate No: 4001
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (74)
Votes (16)

 

sadolite

Pro

It is more likely than not that more people will die from famine and wars caused by restrictions made by the U.N. and environmentalists under the disguise of global warming and saving the planet.
Alternative fuel sources such as ethanol are a big boondoggle and a political scam. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it produces not to mention the fact that it pollutes the atmosphere more than gasoline. It also produces less BTU's per gallon than does Gasoline.

http://plus10.blogspot.com...

Nuclear Energy is out because environmentalists will not allow it to be used either because of the perceived dangers and what to do with the spent fuel. A disposal site has already been built but environmental politicians have prevented it from being utilized for the last 20 years
Arguments made against Yucca Mountain repository.

http://ag.state.nv.us...

No one in Govt will allow any form of storage and no alternative solutions are being made available to deal with nuclear waste because they all come with some form of risk no matter how small it may be. Environmentalists want a 100% guarantee or it can't be done period. So nuclear energy is a waste of everyone's time. When the current nuclear facilities become full of waste they are just shut down and abandoned as there is no place to store it as of yet and probably never will be.

Wind power and hydroelectric power can only help the communities that are within the area, it is worthless as an alternative fuel source for the world. Also all the cars will have to run on electricity in those communities for it to be self sustaining. And then you have to deal with all of the environmental factors involved with all the batteries in all of those cars which will make them so cost prohibitive no one will want them.

Coal, well forget that it pollutes the atmosphere can't use that anymore.

There are no viable cost effective alternative fuel sources in the short or long term. Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life.

http://www.stwr.net...

Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them. If you think the holocaust was bad just wait until Al gore, The U.N. The IPCC and all of the environmentalist who support these people and institutions inflict the world with their future for mankind.
gahbage

Con

"http://plus10.blogspot.com...;

A blog is not sufficient evidence, especially when it derives info from Wikipedia, another blog (Alternative Energy Blog), a biased coalition of taxpayers (Taxpayers for Common Sense), some link that doesn't lead anywhere (What you should be paying for ethanol calculator).

"http://www.stwr.net...;

Same for a "non-profit, privately funded, non-government and politically oriented organization [essentially, any self-sustained website/blog]".

"Wind power and hydroelectric power can only help the communities that are within the area, it is worthless as an alternative fuel source for the world."

It costs nothing to sustain, and can be just as efficient as burning fossil fuels.

"And then you have to deal with all of the environmental factors involved with all the batteries in all of those cars which will make them so cost prohibitive no one will want them."

What environmental factors? I would love a reason as to why these would be environmentally harmful. And what do you mean by "cost prohibitive"?

"Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life."

This doesn't help your argument, it hurts it. Just wanted to point that out.

"Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them. If you think the holocaust was bad just wait until Al gore, The U.N. The IPCC and all of the environmentalist who support these people and institutions inflict the world with their future for mankind."

Wind power, solar power, oxygen power, hydrogen power, hydro-electric power, and carbon power are all effective alternative energy sources. I also fail to see how food shortages can be caused by reducing carbon emissions. And I'm sure famine isn't as bad as a large-scale slaughtering of Jews.

What's more, only this last argument actually has anything to do with your debate. Your argument seems more about debunking this government scam then proving that taking action against global warming will kill people.

I await your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

This is a peer reviewed report on the costs of producing ethanol using corn, switch grass and wood. It is also the most comprehensive report done so far. There are many reports out there that are used by the proponents of ethanol but most are not peer reviewed and leave out many aspects relating to the actual production and distribution of ethanol. Again this is a peer revived report by David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek. Both are peer reviewed scientists

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu...

This is a peer reviewed report on yucca mountain repository. It describes every aspect of the repository and a final conclusion statement made by the scientists who conducted the study. It is clearly stated that it passes all of their minimum requirements to store nuclear waste for ten thousand years. But goes on to say that more should be done to make it even safer and that more reviews are necessary even though it passes inspection. That means it will never get a license to operate as all of the other recommendations will never ever be able to be met. Scroll to page 63 for the conclusion and recommendation statement.

http://www.nea.fr...

This blog link will be all of the arguments that will prohibit it from ever being opened yet the repository has passed all of the requirements for theses arguments. I find this to be an acceptable link as I am only using it as an example for arguments against the repository, not as facts about the repository.

http://ag.state.nv.us...

As I stated before Nuclear Energy is a waste of everyone's time and money and effort. It will never be allowed on a large scale to provide power where it is needed. It is a very cheap and clean source of fuel but is made artificially cost prohibitive be endless regulation and protests and lawsuit injunctions that make it not even worth trying. Hydro and wind power are only useful to the surrounding area within a 100 or 200 mile radius. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with these energy sources. The initial start up cost is astronomical and third world countries will not invest in them and are unsuitable for the locations that most third world countries are situated.

All electric and hybrid battery cars: The battery life is only guaranteed for 8 years or 80,000 miles and that is prorated. It can cost anywhere from 3,000 to 7,000 dollars to replace the battery in one of these cars. I used car dealer information and I know you don't like them but forums and blogs about people who own or have owned ether type of these vehicles. I found no discrepancies between the dealer information and these blogs when it comes to the price of these batteries. These batteries are filled with the same hazardous acid that is in regular lead acid batteries but ten to 20 times as much. If these cars end up being massed produced there will be hundreds of thousands of these batteries sitting around and many people who would recycle them for metal content will just dump the acid on the ground to get at the metal to make a few bucks. You have to pay a mechanic to remove it and a disposal fee to get rid of it. Many people will not be willing to pay these fees and just dump the battery some where and sell the car as scrap. When these cars get older they will make their way over seas into the third world countries where the only thing people care about over there is having a job and feeding them selves, They will most assuredly drive these cars until they die and dump the battery acid and scrap the battery and car for metal content.

"Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life."

I don't believe any of the prediction made by global warming alarmists. But this statement proves a very important point. The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves. There is nothing on the horizon that is going to replace fossil fuels in the next 20 years. But the world is going to be flooded and the reaming land will be deserts by then. I use the movie An Inconvenient truth as my source for this coming calamity. It is an acceptable source as it won a Pulitzer Prize but is not peer reviewed. The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves. It is the Environmentalists goal to eliminate these things from the planet in 20 to 50 years or they say the planet is doomed and they must start now!! If they do this millions will die of starvation.
Whether or not I believe in global warring being caused by man or not is irrelevant to this debate. What is relevant is the environmentalists movement to eliminate fossil fuel consumption without having a cost effective alternative fuel source in place and a infrastructure to deliver it.
Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more. They are worthless as alternative fuel sources if fossil fuels are to be eliminated in the next 20 years if we are going to save this planet from the coming calamity predicted by the environmental movement. People are going to start dying by the millions if restrictions on fossil fuel production aren't lifted.
gahbage

Con

Besides ethanol, there are also successful hydrogen-powered and oxygen powered cars, and even solar-powered cars, that can fit the current infrastructure (road) system. They just need to be mass-produced.

Your argument against the use of nuclear energy and its links don't matter since I agree with you on that - nuclear energy isn't a good idea in my opinion. Since I never disagreed with you about it, we don't need to argue about it.

"All electric and hybrid battery cars..."

Are you talking 8 years maximum with charging the battery, or without?

Also, if you need to switch batteries or get rid of yours, local/state governments can build places similar to wherever regular batteries are disposed of, and have people get rid of them there.

"Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon power? All of these energy sources are experimental and decades from viable development and then infrastructures will have to be built to deliver it which will take decades more."

It will not take that long, and with the proper funding, it can happen. I've already stated that some alternative-energy cars are efficient and suited to the current infrastructure. And using hydroelectric power at major water bodies can provide enough energy for alot of places. Using wind power on the coast and in high places can provide energy for those places.

Since most countries are suited for some sort of alternative fuel, they wont be "dying by the millions".
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

This sight is scientific fact about hydrogen and there is not a single scientist in the world that will even think of challenging it because it is a matter of the laws of nature and physics. Hydrogen will never be used as an alternative large scale fuel source. You are being fed a bunch of lies about Hydrogen and it's potential as an alternative fuel source. I defy anyone who reads this link to prove me wrong by proving the information in this report is incorrect.

http://mb-soft.com...

Hydrogen is an experiment, hydrogen is not a viable cost effective energy source and it will not be one in 5 10 or even 20 years.
The price for a car with a fuel cell is anywhere from $70,000 to $150,000 dollars depending on the size of the fuel tank for the hydrogen. They get anywhere from 60 to 250 miles to the tank full depending on whether or not you have a lead foot. I hope every one reads this link, it will be a real eye opener for those who think Hydrogen is a viable large scale fuel source. All of the funding in the world will never make hydrogen cost effective unless you can change mother nature and the laws of physics.

Oxygen power: I read up on this and there is some hope here, it makes fuel mileage increases possible but in no way can it be used without gasoline and it only works with and is designed for diesel and gasoline engines and does not reduce pollution.

http://ezinearticles.com...

"Are you talking 8 years maximum with charging the battery, or without?"

One would assume if one bought a hybrid or all electric car they would use it and therefore have to charge the battery when it ran low after being used. Ether way once you buy it, the warranty starts to tick, whether or not you use it is irrelevant.

Infrastructure: I was not referring to the roads that cars drive on. I was referring to the filling stations that would have to be built to deliver compressed gases such as hydrogen to the cars. If you refer back to my first link you will get an idea of the complexities involved with this and the inherent catastrophic dangers that go with compressed gases. Not to mention the astronomical costs that go with it.

"Also, if you need to switch batteries or get rid of yours, local/state governments can build places similar to wherever regular batteries are disposed of, and have people get rid of them there."

First of all, your assumption that everyone is going to do the right thing and turn the batteries in instead of dumping the acid out and scraping it for the metal is quite naive. At my work place, we have three large air conditioners. Thieves have twice cut the condensing coils out of them risking jail time just to turn the metal in to make a few bucks. And then of course your assumption that govt is just going to pay for everything.

There are no solar powered commercially available cars or trucks or anything available for sale. Still decades away from that technology.

I have already explained hydro and wind power. What about the rest of the world that can't use this? I really don't think you understand anything about alternative fuel sources and how soon they will be available on a large scale. Your statement, "It wont take that long " is both mind boggling and without any source to back that statement up.

"Since most countries are suited for some sort of alternative fuel, they wont be "dying by the millions"

Oh right, they will just pull some energy source out of their a##, they don't have anything to worry about. "With proper funding they will be OK.

My final point. I don't think you understand that you are being lied to about these dooms day predictions. Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence. Yet Al Gore, The fanatic environmentalists want to cut production of fossil fuels as the population grows and that will effect the poorest of the poor the worst. If you live in a third world country your outlook is pretty bad if they get their way. Millions will die.

Again it is constantly drilled into everyone's head daily that this planet is doomed if we don't cut the use of dramatically or completely eliminate fossil fuels in the next twenty years. The planet is doomed or you are being lied to and the greatest hoax on man kind is being played out before your very eyes. Unfortunately Millions will die under the disguise of saving the planet and I can assure you that this will happen if fossil fuel production is cut or eliminated without a viable fuel source to replace it. All the funding in the world will not make this possible in twenty years.
gahbage

Con

Though it may be true that most alternative energy sources are duds/inefficient, this does not necessarily prove your point. You have spent the vast majority of this debate condemning the use and efficiency of alternative fuels, which I do not entirely disagree, but then again, it has little to do with your topic. Here are all your statements that support your claim, "Steps to stop Global Warming will kill far more people than it will save":

"Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them."

Third world populations will not necessarily be affected, as our global warming measures cannot be forced upon other nations. We make our own rules.

"The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves . . . The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves."

As I stated above, only the poorest of the poor in this country will suffer. There is also such a thing as a water-powered mill. This can easily provide work and energy for those who use agricultural support.

"Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence."

It this is true, then the plan for action against global warming will not be a major problem until fossil fuels expire. The plan is to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80% by the year 2050.
Debate Round No. 3
74 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jamcke 6 years ago
Jamcke
What I find amusing is that you stated:

Where can I go buy a solar powered car?

Where can I go buy a car that gets 100 miles per gallon?

Fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity to charge the batteries in battery powered cars.

I showed you, so you redirected and began to refute something else. = You lose, spanks for playing.

I think you are confused about government mandates. Show me a credible source that proves that the government requires car companies to make electric cars and that there's no market for them. As usual, you can't.

The sources I provided show that 100 mpg do exist, they're just not mass produced and available for anyone to purchase from a dealer. Anyone can build their own.

I most certainly did read the whole article at http://www.popularmechanics.com...
which affirms my above statement, and nothing more. You wrote "lol" as if I was suggesting otherwise. Again, your reading comprehension is atrocious. lol
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Point one: I guess that would work for a few people who are willing to put up with all the headaches of having a solar powered car. And the people who live in colder climates will have to buy two cars one that runs on gas during the winter because batteries lose power and efficiency rapidly as temps drop. And then you have to contend with the problem of where you are going to mount the solar panels. If you buy a newer electric car which runs at 320 volts you would need 8 26 x48 panels wired in series to get enough power to charge the 15 batteries that take up all the space in the trunk. And then of course over cast days you, are walking to work today. If you have a family a completely useless option.

#2 If the govt' is going to mandate car companies to build a certain type of car and it flops and no one buys it, does the automaker have to eat the loss or do you think the govt should reimburse the automaker for all of the money spent on research and development of a car no one wants. Auto companies only build electric cars because they have to, to satisfy the govt mandates. they would not build them at all because they know there is no market for them. These two options are great for single people with no one to worry about but themselves and can sit around for anywhere from 8 to 24 hours waiting for batteries to recharge and only drive a few miles a day. But the reality is many people have families and have to drive more than 100 miles a day which is about what the average charge gets you. and these cars are very small and impractical for people with families. I would not buy one of these options you suggest because it will not work for me and my family. The 100 mile gallon car does not exist, hasn't been built yet. I use your sources for all rebutals by the way.

http://www.popularmechanics.com...... It's apperent you didn't read this, only the title. I read the whole thing. lol
Posted by Jamcke 6 years ago
Jamcke
Rebuttal to point #1 If you want a solar powered car, buy an electric car, and a solar panel to charge it.
http://squidoo.com...

#2 Want a car that gets 100 miles per gallon?
http://www.calcars.org...

If that doesn't do it for you, http://www.popularmechanics.com...

#3 My above source proves that fossil fuels are not the only way to generate the electricity to charge the batteries in battery powered cars.

#4 There aren't any new nuclear power plants being built because there's no sure-fire way to permanently store nuclear waste safely. Do you suggest that we just bury it in a mountain and leave the problem for future generations to figure out? There are alternatives to nuclear energy, to include wind, solar, tidal wave generation, Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) power plants,etc.

#5 Obviously, you are mistaken as to what intellectual property is if you are using alcohol and tobacco regulation as an example.

#6 What statements have I made in previous comments that required sources which I didn't provide?

#7 As I've stated before, anyone can find a source that is contrary to any statement, but if you're discussing scientific fact, then your source needs to be credible. Otherwise, you might as well have taken it out of the funny pages. Your claim that I "will promptly dismiss all of (your) sources using politics or some other reason that has absolutely nothing to do with the information in the sources that (you) provide. And then (I) will go on to say that (you) need to provide more evidence that only (I) and (I) alone will decide is acceptable. And then (I) will promptly reject that source because it contradicts what you say." is just this side of retarded.

I dismiss your sources because they are NOT credible and this frustrates you. For the third or fourth time now, I am calling you a hypocrite on this because of statements you made in another debate regarding peer reviewed sources.
Posted by Rob1Billion 6 years ago
Rob1Billion
I refuse to believe that gas is the only thing on this planet that can run a freaking car. We (environmentalists) aren't looking for our engineers to turn water into wine; we just want an alternative to gas-guzzlers.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Where can I go buy a solar powered car?

Where can I go buy a car that gets 100 miles per gallon?

Fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity to charge the batteries in battery powered cars.

A nuclear power plant hasn't been built in the U.S. in thirty years.

There are no plans to build any new ones.

The govt sets mandates and regulations on automakers all the time.

The govt can regulate intellectual property or prohibit it. Pornography, alcohol, tobacco, guns etc. etc.

You of course need not back any of your statements, your words are the words of god the almighty

I will accept any source you provide, about any claim you make and I don't care where it came from or who said it. I will read your sources then I will research your sources data and then I will provide other sources that contradict what you claim. I will compare the opposing sources side by side, and then in my own words explain why your sources are flawed, if in fact there are, and then you will promptly dismiss all of my sources using politics or some other reason that has absolutely nothing to do with the information in the sources that I provide. And then you will go on to say that I need to provide more evidence that only you and you alone will decide is acceptable. And then you will promptly reject that source because it contradicts what you say.
Posted by Jamcke 6 years ago
Jamcke
sadolite: You must have the poorest reading comprehension skills of anyone on this site. First off, as usual, you've ignored large parts of my last comment. Secondly, I didn't state that "lobbyist would stand a chance at blocking a car that gets 100 miles per gallon". This isn't matter in which the government has any legal say in. When a person / company invents something and gets a patten on it, it's legally protected and owned by that person or company. The government has no say as to what anyone does with their intellectual property.

You state that "Electric doesn't count because fossil fuels are used to produce the electricity to charge the batteries" but there are NO fossil fuels used in an electric car. Solar power is one fuel source that is currently accepted by environmentalists to fuel our cars that doesn't use more energy to produce than it provides. Granted, there's still much work to be done to make this a viable option, but you asked me to name one so there you go.

Also, as usual, you make a remarkable claim ("It could be possible if only nuclear energy wasn't off the table.") with nothing to back your statement up. As much as you talk about science, you should read more scientific literature, such as popular science for starters.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Jamcke, name one fuel source that is currently accepted by environmentalists to fuel our cars that doesn't use more energy to produce than it provides. Electric doesn't count because fossil fuels are used to produce the electricity to charge the batteries. It could be possible if only nuclear energy wasn't off the table. We all know that environmentalists will never allow nuclear energy.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Jamke, You actually believe that lobbyist would stand a chance at blocking a car that gets 100 miles per gallon, with gas at #4.00 a gallon. If such a car existed it would already be on the market with back orders going 5 years into the future. And any car company that offered one would crush all of it's competition over night.
Posted by Jamcke 6 years ago
Jamcke
sadolite: First off, neither foreign nor domestic car companies are under the control of the US government. Foreign / domestic car companies, oil companies, etc are in control of US government regulatory agencies, such as the EPA. These agencies are known as "captive agencies" because of the billions of dollars these companies pour into lobbying to keep laws and regulations favorable to them. They are also known as being captive due to what's known as the "revolving door" which is when people go from a private sector job to a government job in a regulatory agency which formerly regulated the industry they worked for, and vice versa. A hypothetical example of this would be an oil executive who gives a particular state-level politician campaign financing, and when the politician gets elected, the executive resigns and is put in control of the state department of environmental management.

It is not in the best interest of these companies, foreign or domestic, to allow highly-efficient cars to be produced and sold to the masses. For the record, your analogy of foreign car companies decimating the American car companies is irrelevant because they're basically one in the same now. Any car company's stock is available to purchase in a global market, and some foreign companies are likely more domestic that "US" companies. In addition, there are seemingly more "foreign" types made in the US since all of the US companies started outsourcing to Mexico.

Your claim that "There will never be a energy source that will satisfy an environmentalist that doesn't use more energy to produce than the energy it provides. To date this is all that is offered in the way of alternatives" is dead wrong, especially since it's against the first law of thermo dynamics to get more energy out of something than you put in. Since when did you become the authority on alternative energy to say that there will never be an energy source that will satisfy environmentalists?
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
Jamcke, There will never be a energy source that will satisfy an environmentalist that doesn't use more energy to produce than the energy it provides. To date this is all that is offered in the way of alternatives
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 5 years ago
TxsRngr
sadolitegahbageTied
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 JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
sadolitegahbageTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 6 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sadolitegahbageTied
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 Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
sadolitegahbageTied
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 Mangani 6 years ago
Mangani
sadolitegahbageTied
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 gahbage 6 years ago
gahbage
sadolitegahbageTied
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 Sweatingjojo 6 years ago
Sweatingjojo
sadolitegahbageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
sadolitegahbageTied
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 slayer54321 6 years ago
slayer54321
sadolitegahbageTied
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 6 years ago
bexy_kelly
sadolitegahbageTied
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