The Instigator
girr29
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
whitesoxfan450
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/15/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,140 times Debate No: 3654
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (13)

 

girr29

Pro

Round 2: PRO girr29 (vs) CON whitesoxfan450

I look forward to what should be a great debate and discussion about why surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. Before we start this round I would assume my opponent would accept the United States as the governmental system in which we talk about in this debate round. If they would like to make this a bigger issue in his next speech then I will address the issue there.

I will first start off by defining three key terms to this debate that come to us from the Unabridged dictionary, from dictionary.com.

Surveillance – a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion.

Public – open to all persons.

Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental.

I reserve the right to define these terms again and any other terms that might become important throughout the rest of the debate round.

Let's move to some argumentation.

I: To start things off let's go in depth in the true meaning of this resolution.

A: Let's first start by talking about the public areas. Public is defined as open to all persons So therefore, there is no invasion of privacy if the government put up some more cameras in the public. So the government will not be hurting any fundamental or human rights by making more surveillance cameras in public.

B: Let's look to the surveillance part of the resolution. Surveillance is defined as a close observation of a person or group, especially one under suspicion. So the whole point of surveillance cameras are to keep us safer from the ones in public who are suspicious and could potentially commit suspicious acts. So the whole point of making more surveillance cameras is to keep us even safer from those who could potentially hurt us.

C: Finally, let's look to the end of the resolution where it says should be substantially increased. That doesn't mean I have to do it, doesn't mean I need to make a plan, all it means is that I just have to agree that….yes…we should make more surveillance cameras. But furthermore on this substantially is defined as something basic or essential; fundamental. I do believe that is something basic, that is essential, and that it is of course fundamental to improve the protection of the public and it can be done by making more surveillance cameras.

II: The resolution affirmed improves the Safety, Security, and Stability of society.

A: Safety, Security, and Stability, or as I like to call them, the three Ss, are inherent rights that a society deserves. By increasing the number of cameras in public areas, the three Ss have more potential to stand. That is why I do believe that the resolution should be affirmed because the three Ss should be upheld and that's why we should substantially increase the number of surveillance cameras in public.

B: The fewer cameras there are, the higher chance of crime happening. If suspicious characters know there are less surveillance cameras watching them, they will be more willing to commit criminal acts. As a report in the csmonitor talked about in 2007 about surveillance cameras, "a lot of the time people don't like the fact that big brother is watching them, but the matter of the fact is that big brother keeps us safe. Without someone watching us, this country would be a lot worse off." By having more surveillance cameras we truly do what is right for the public.

III: A substantial increase SHOULD happen.

A: Some arguments that might be brought up in this debate round are that I am trying to implement a plan or trying to make something happen. But that is not the burden of the pro in this round. I believe that all I have to prove is that it should happen. So I don't have to discuss how much money or man hours it would take to make more cameras go up or any real logistics of the situation, just that it should happen.

B: The only argumentation that the con can really only bring up is that more surveillance means more watching over us like a big brother. But that shouldn't be a reason to not do something. Just because people don't liked being watched, doesn't mean we sacrifice our all together safety, security, and stability.

So at the end of this debate round you have to look at the wording of the resolution. My first contention talks about the wording of the resolution and the importance of that. Then in my second and third I basically bring up the points about how the three Ss are protected on the pro, and that all I have to prove is that this should happen and I don't have to implement a plan.

That is why I must urge a pro ballot and I look forward to a competitive, enjoyable, and fun debate.
whitesoxfan450

Con

Thank you to my opponent for sending me this debate! My last opponent never posted the debate, so this is really my first debate. I commend you actually sending the debate! :)
OK, so I will bring up my case first, and then I will answer what my opponent brought up in his speech.
I negate the resolution that Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.
I don't feel a need to put definitions, since my opponent set them out clearly.

I. Surveillance cameras take out the idea of public areas.
The whole idea of a private area is to be watched, and for rules to be set. Private areas have rules and regulations, so thats what makes it private. However, if cameras are put in these public area, it becomes private. This is because that whole idea of being watched is added in. Because of this, cameras should not be increased in areas.

2. Surveillance cameras can be expensive.
These cameras will cost thousands of dollars. And if these are put in public areas like parks, then it will have to come from the community budget. This will cause communities to lose money, and possibly raise taxes, which makes the community less popular.

3. Surveillance cameras don't prevent the crimes, or stop the criminals.
A camera can't stop a criminal in his/her tracks. All it can do is make the authorities in the area aware something is happening, and alert them to help. Becuase of this, surveillance cameras won't prevent the many crimes that can happen. If a criminal is running out of a store, and someone sees it on camera, now what? The criminal is gone. While if a guard was there, the criminal could be tazed, or stopped.

4.Thus, I submit this plan(Counterplan)
Security Guards in public areas should be substantially increased.
a) Security guards can protect, and still keep areas public.
A guard can help protect, by, of course, stopping the criminal. However, they also fall under my definition of a public area. They don't have to watch people every second of every day, they can be near entrances, and exits, and stop the crimes. With guards, public areas are still public
b)Guards are not as expensive as cameras
2 cameras can be thousands of dollars, while 2 guards can be about $20 an hour, or so.
c)Guards prevent, AND stop the crimes.
Not only can guards convince people to do the right thing, but they can also prevent the people who choose to do the wrong things from continuing so.

Now, on to my opponents case

1) My opponent gives a clear definition of public, and surveillance, but doesn't solve for saftey. He states that:
"the whole point of making more surveillance cameras is to keep us even safer from those who could potentially hurt us."
However, they don't stop the crimes. Cross apply my number 3.

2)My opponent also brings up the 3 S's. However, I solve for the 3 S's better. Saftey is safer with guards, security is better with guards, and stability can be maintained with guards. Cameras make aware, but don't protect.

3.) Also, What is my opponents definition of substantial? It means that some cameras have been put into place now, but how many?
Debate Round No. 1
girr29

Pro

I will start off by attacking my opponent's case then attack the points he made against my case. But before that, pull through the point that we are talking about the United States as the basis country and governmental system we discuss, as he must agree that it is.

Off of his 1 argument:
Private is defined as not open or accessible to the general public. My opponent tries to argue the point that a public area no longer becomes public once you put cameras into it. Public as I defined before is open to all persons. So if we put more surveillance cameras in a grocery store, does it become a private venue? No, it does not. It is still accessible to the public, but rather the increase in surveillance cameras will make the public feel safer. Private areas can also certainly have cameras, but that's not the point of this debate.

Off of his 2 argument:
Look to my third contention where I talk about how this resolution says should happen. I don't have to provide a budgetary plan or show the pragmatics of the situation. But even if I had to compare budgetary plans, his alternative to cameras are security guards which would cost a lot more money than surveillance cameras, and you would have to keep paying them every single year. I will further discuss this in his third and fourth arguments.

Off of his 3 argument:
The security guards can stop criminals right there, but cameras can also catch them and make sure they don't get away. Do not let this debate round become surveillance cameras against security guards. We are here to discuss surveillance cameras and whether or not they should be substantially increased in public areas. Not whether security guards or surveillance cameras are better. Both are affective, both can stop the rate of crime, and both can potentially insure the three Ss very well. But the obligation of the con is not to bring up other options, cause if that was so he could abuse that by saying we should increase satellite surveillance of people, or bring in the military to protect public areas. Once again, let's stay topical and let's have a discussion about the pros and cons of substantially increasing surveillance cameras in public areas and if it should happen.

Off of his 4 argument:
Okay, he likes to bring the issue of money, and I don't think it needs to be a huge issue, but if he wants it to be an issue then let's talk about the costs of a security guard to a camera. A good surveillance camera would be two to three thousand dollars. So for example…..a Target wants to increase security in a store. So they can either get two more surveillance cameras for a cost from about four to six thousand dollars or they can hire two security guards for $20 dollars an hour as my opponent said. Let's say a Target is open 6am-11pm. That would be 17 hours, 40 dollars each hour for the two shifts (more than two guys would hold the shifts). In that day alone it would be $680, for a 7 day week, it would be $4760. In nearly a week, the store would have paid the shifts for the security guards as much as they would for a surveillance camera. If he wants to bring up maintenance, then I'll include that, but that would be chump change to the amounts his security guard idea would bring up. The store could install many cameras even before touching the costs of what two shifts at security guard alone would cost.
But even beyond the cost, surveillance cameras, will keep criminals off. If a criminal knows that a store is full of surveillance cameras they will be extremely less likely to commit a crime.

But once again do not buy his counter-plan because this is not intended to be a comparison between anything he can bring up against surveillance cameras, but rather, once again, a discussion and debate only about surveillance cameras.

Now moving on to my side of the debate.

Against his attacks on my 1st contention:
Safe is defined as dependable or trustworthy. It can also be defined as careful to avoid danger. I do accomplish increasing safe because by installing more surveillance cameras I install something that is dependable or trustworthy. I also, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, do what is careful to avoid danger. It keeps tabs on dangerous people, so that if they do commit acts in these public areas we discuss, they will get caught, and plus by using a surveillance camera you get a sure view of what happened in the crime, thus making it easier to catch, indict, and prosecute a criminal. He may try to bring up security guards again, but still that's not the point of this debate round, it's too discuss surveillance cameras. I think that they indeed SHOULD increase the number of surveillance cameras, because that would accomplish increasing safety, thus I'm doing what is right.

Against his attacks on my 2nd contention:
I grow tired of his security guard arguments because my obligation is not to prove why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. So I will prove why I do accomplish the three Ss. But I will not tell you why I do it better than security guards, because that is not my obligation. The resolution would have made it an issue if it was, but I do not have to continue comparing surveillance cameras to security guards. I accomplish the three Ss in this way. Safety is accomplished because of what I discussed in the paragraph just before this one, so look to those for how I accomplish safety. Security is accomplished, because security is can be defined as well founded-confidence of one's protection. There is no doubt that surveillance cameras can make one have well-founded confidence of one's protection. I have don't have to compare whether or not security guards do this better or worse, because that is not what the resolution asks. Finally, stability is found on the pro as well. Stability is defined as the state or quality of being stable. I do accomplish being stable because by having a structured system of surveillance cameras I have balanced stability. So because I provide and accomplish the three Ss it is shown that surveillance cameras are beneficial to society, therefore that's why I believe surveillance cameras in public areas, once again, should be substantially increased.

Against his attack on my 3rd contention:
Substantially – something basic or essential; fundamental.
There is no set number, but the resolution implies that some camera were already in place, so I believe by increasing the number of them, I increase the potential of maintaining the three Ss. Also, pull through the points that he some what rebutted in other spots, that we don't have to discuss economics. It is a SHOULD resolution, not a plans and policy resolution.

So in the end, I provide as to why surveillance cameras should be substantially increased in public areas. I show how I get the three Ss of safety, security, and stability.

We are here to debate surveillance cameras, and not security guards. Please do not accept his counter-plan because as I just stated in 3rd contention rebuttal that it is a SHOULD resolution, and not a plans and policy resolution.

That is why I can only see a Pro vote at the end of this round
whitesoxfan450

Con

I'll start off with my case, then my opponents case. And yes, I agree that this debate is specifically about the United States.

On my number 1.
What I am arguing is that public area are free of watch, and have less strict rules. Adding the cameras takes away this idea.

On my number 2.
I never said you have to provide a plan, all I am saying is that your plan will be too expensive. Also, in debate, you are supposed to persuade the judge or audience to vote for you, by stating why your world would be better than mine. And by not saying how much this will cost, or HOW it will be done, the judge can't know what will happen in your world. Also, guards cost less than cameras(Ill further explain in my number 4)

On my number 3.
First of all, don't listen to his argument of no counterplans. I am saying why surveillance cameras should not be substantially increased(Cost, and efficiency) And giving an alternative.(Linking back to my number 2) I am giving why cameras should NOT be substantially increased, and why guards should be, so disreguard this argument.
Next, The cameras can show where they are. Thats it. They don't physically stop them. What if the viewing area for cameras is on the 3rd floor of a building, and the criminal is getting away THAT SECOND. Immediate action is needed! So in this case, guards do that.

On my number 4.
So lets continue this cost argument. For a Target that has, lets say, 2 cameras, you're going to need about 10 cameras, one for each corner, one near door, one near electronics, and others spread throughout. So if I agree that they cost around 2 thousand dollars(I do) Thats 2 thousand times 10, which is 20,000. Compare that to my 4760. Its a huge difference. My plan is more cost efficient.
Also, cameras don't always keep criminals off. If they did, there would be no crime in places with cameras. Period. Which isn't true. In my area, there are flashing blue lights(Police cameras) around many corners, and are crimes committed? Yes. Guards would be more efficient.

Also, his argument about no counterplans is abusive. He provides a plan/idea, and I counter it with disadvantages, and another plan/idea. Without my say in the debate, its not a debate, and not fair. I said why Surveillance cams should NOT be substantially increased, and what to do instead. This is fair.

Now, to my opponents case.
1) You don't accomplish complete saftey. What trustworthiness do you get from a guard on the third floor, running after someone on a skateboard? And fine, for this part of the argument, I'll specifically talk about why cameras shouldn't be added, and don't help.

2)To keep security guards out, extend my number 2 and 3, stating that cameras are expensive, and don't stop the criminal.

3)His definition of substantial is right, but not appropriate for this debate
Substantial-to a great extent or degree
A set number of cameras isn't needed. All I am saying is explain why the number of cameras now isn't working, how to fix it, and how it will impact the company/place in a positive way.
This is a Should resolution, yes. And with that, these answers are needed
WHY should this happen?
HOW is this going to help?
HOW is this the BEST solution(Most important)
The argument of why it is best will be key in this debate. If my opponent says that all computers should be white, I want to know why this needs to happen, why he wants this, and how white is better than black.

Because of my definitions, my counterplan, and those questions(If not answered) I encourage a Negative Ballot.

Thank you for a great debate so far!
Debate Round No. 2
girr29

Pro

Okay, I'll start with my opponent's case, move to mine, then I'll wrap it all up with some key voting issues in this round.

Off of his 1 argument:
He continues to uphold the idea that once a camera is put in a public area, that it is no longer public, but rather it becomes private. But you'll see as I defined private (not open or accessible to the general public) and as I defined public (open to all persons), that just because I put up a surveillance camera or several surveillance cameras in a public area, does not make it private. To be private is for something to not be open or accessible to the general public, and installing cameras does not take away public areas, in fact cameras keep the public safer. And just because someone thinks cameras are cramping their style does not mean you sacrifice the three Ss just so their style is not cramped. You cannot accept his 1st point because basic definitions and logic alone will tell you that just because I put a camera up in a public area, doesn't magically make it private area.

Off of his 2 argument:
First let's talk about the different worlds argument…..we are debating whether or not surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. We are no debating which world is better, more cameras or more guards. We are not debating that. The con burden in the round is to prove why we should not put more cameras up, but instead my opponent uses smokescreen tactics to try and avoid the actual dialogue of the resolution we should be discussing. Since it is a should resolution, it appears to be more philosophy based, and not so much who provides a better plan. Let's get back to the pros and cons of surveillance cameras, and let's not do this cameras (vs) guards debate…..because that is not what the resolution asks of us. Anyways, he brings up some economic arguments in this argument as well, but I'll discuss these in his 4 argument, so we can get to it all there.

Off of his 3 and 4 argument:
I need to touch on some major misconceptions and as a result, I will fuse my arguments against his 3 and 4 arguments into one long argument against both. Alright let's talk about some economics here. Even though it should not be cameras (vs) guards, I will show you why cameras are still more cost efficient. Okay, I do not really accept 10 cameras counter 2 security guards. But even so, the $4,760 dollars is based on how much they earn per week. That means multiple that by 52, and you will get the number the store has to pay the shifts of security guard every year. That number would be $247,520 dollars every year for two shifts at security guard. Whereas 10 cameras would only cost $20,000 dollars, maybe a little maintenance, but that can not counter the idea that 2 security guards cost more 12 times the amount of 10 surveillance cameras. In addition, as a report of job listings said on monster.com, a person who watches a surveillance camera is paid an average of 12 dollars per hour. So let's I even had 2 guys watching with 10 cameras all that cost together would cost $168,512. That is still dramatically less than the $247,520 dollars that two security guards alone would cost. Moreover, surveillance cameras can actually look at the entire store, whereas guards can only be in a certain little area at a time. Surveillance cameras do cost less and they do stop crime. So even though I believe we should you know……actually debate the resolution, I still provide why surveillance cameras are better, because they cost less, they can view of more of the store, thus stopping more crime, and that's why they are better than security guards.

Off his counter-plan argument he made after the 4 argument:
Forgive me if I actually wanted to debate the resolution. I think we should have some direct debate about surveillance cameras and once again the pros and cons of why they should be substantially increased in public areas. I think that we should just debate the resolution, but as he continues with this counter-plan, I continue to offer two arguments, that 1) I believe we should talk about surveillance cameras and not bring up anything you could think of in a counter-plan, and 2) I beat his counter-plan anyways, with the effectiveness of viewing the entire store, and costing way less than security guards would.
He thinks I'm cheating him, because I'm not allowing him to make up some plan to go against mine, but I'm not. I got handed the job of defending surveillance cameras and why they should be substantially increased. That is what I have to do, that is the burden of the pro. You would be cheating me if you decided to try to throw up smokescreens to the resolution. But nevertheless, you still try to uphold this counter-plan and whether or not the judge accepts or not, I have efficiently beaten it.

Moving on to my case…..

Off his attacks on my 1st contention:
Surveillance do accomplish safety (dependable or trustworthiness), because they can view the whole store, the camera does not lie, it doesn't hold grudges, it doesn't have emotions, like a guard would, and a camera can only show the truth. Since it can only reveal and show the truth that makes it both dependable and trustworthy.

Off his attacks on my 2nd contention:
Of course cameras can't physically stop people. But the people assigned to watch the cameras can either stop them, they can call a manager, or call the police to take action. He pulls through his money totals, but I've shown why I win of those two. Plus, I like to point out that I don't ever have to get rid of security guards. He wants to get rid of surveillance cameras and only have security guards. But you see, the pro doesn't have to get rid of anything, by substantially increasing surveillance cameras, I don't get rid of anything. Because in the end, I can have my cake and eat it too, whereas he can't.

Off his attacks on my 3rd contention:
Increasing implies getting more, so I'm trying to avoid that I'm trying to get more surveillance cameras. But since he offers no dictionary source for substantial and he previously agreed with mine earlier, my definition is still upheld as the one in this round. I will answer all of your questions in my voting issues right now.

Voting Issues:

Why the number of cameras now isn't working, how to fix it, and how it will impact the company/place in a positive way?
(I don't of course have numbers for each public place, but I can tell this is talking about a general impact, and by increasing the number of cameras I potentially insure the three Ss more.)

Why should this happen?
(Because more surveillance cameras can bring more safety, security, and stability to society as I've explained throughout this debate round.)

How is this going to help?
(By installing more cameras, more criminals are caught, less shoplifting will happen, and it will make people behave in a more civilized and un-criminal manner in public areas)

How is this the best solution?
(The resolution never specifies that I have to offer the best solution in the debate, but rather asks the question should this happen, as in…is this a good thing. And yes, I do believe substantially increasing the number of surveillance cameras is good for society. More so, you're trying to compare guards to cameras again, but once again, that shouldn't be the debate, but even if it was I provide why cameras are better, but as I said before the Pro doesn't have to get rid of guards, I can have both them and cameras. But the Con's plan is essentially asking to eliminate cameras, and have the guards. So that's just another reason on top of the effectiveness and the cost that I win that part of the debate.)

CLOSING STATEMENT:
I truly do believe you must vote pro, I win the round at it's pure core, and I win it even with his counterplan. I urge the judges to look at the arguments and see that the Pro does win the round.

I thank my opponent for what has been a very enjoyable round.
whitesoxfan450

Con

whitesoxfan450 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Girr29 (continued): If there is a counter advocacy that solves the same harms as your advocacy but does it better then the counter advocacy should be adopted and the advocacy dropped. The exception to this of course it when the advocacy and counter advocacy are not mutually exclusive.

For example if you said, "We should get a dog because they are cuddly."

And I said, "Counter advocacy: We should get a cat because they are more cuddly."

My scenario is not mutually exclusive and you can simply state,

"We should get a dog and a cat to increase the cuddliness by amazing proportions." This effectively destroys my entire case and is always something you should watch for when someone offers any type of counter advocacy.

Whitesoxfan450: I enjoyed your counter advocacy but you need to work on a few things.

First you need to make your advocacy mutually exclusive in some way, for instance you could have stated that having security guards takes away the need for having cameras. At which point you just have to prove this.

Secondly you need to show how your case outweighs your opponents case. Your opponent easily has you on the monetary factor so you would have needed to show how the security guard solves more for safety and then how safety outweighs monetary lose. The easiest way to do this would have been to state that a criminal will typically wear a mask or hood while making a robbery thus negating any benefit from a security camera. Then going on to state that a security camera gives a criminal a greater amount of time to carry out his criminal act, thus giving him a greater chance to a escape, where as a security guard does not offer this opportunity.

Finally you need to put impacts on things you say. Telling me that cameras make public places private means nothing to me. If you go on to inform me that private places have a 20% greater suicide rate for some reason... different story.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Alright.

Yraelz judging Round 2: Girr29 vs. Whitesoxfan450.

The very first point argued here is whether having cameras makes a place public of private. I actually don't end up counting this point at all because neither debater tells me how this effects the debate at all or what impact turning a public place into a private has.

After the first point we have a counter plan that attempts to solve the problem in the same way that the cameras attempt to solve. As this point goes on I do end up agreeing that the counter plan has some amount of solvency.

However we have two issues, the first is whether a guard increases safety more or less than cameras. As Pro aptly points out the cameras can show what truly happened while a guard can be biased. Also a camera can view a wider area and the camera worker has the ability to call the police/manager. Thus I give this point to Pro.

The second was financial. Once again I must also give this point to pro as he undoubtedly showed that annually the security guards will cost a great deal more.

However these points mattered for nothing when Pro finally pointed out that both plans were not mutually exclusive, meaning that they have the ability to happen at the same time. In other words, yes, Pro can have his cake and eat it too. Thus I have to vote for Pro on the ability for both plans to happen at once and the three S's that Pro's plan solves for.

Tips for both debaters:

Girr29: A counter advocacy is always legit providing that it negates the necessity for your advocacy. For instance if you said, "Pop machines in public areas should substantially be increased." and I came back with "Multi-purpose machines in areas should be increased instead" I would argue, "Pop machines should not be increased at all because multi-purpose machines can dispense pop and have other advantages also. This takes away any need for pop machines."
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by whitesoxfan450 6 years ago
whitesoxfan450
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 tim 6 years ago
tim
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 LedLegend 6 years ago
LedLegend
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 shaqdaddy34 6 years ago
shaqdaddy34
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 British_Guy 6 years ago
British_Guy
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 livi 6 years ago
livi
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 meganlg43 6 years ago
meganlg43
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 turtlecool2 6 years ago
turtlecool2
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 WeaponE 6 years ago
WeaponE
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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 Jokerdude 6 years ago
Jokerdude
girr29whitesoxfan450Tied
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