The Instigator
tvellalott
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Fatihah
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points

That Islam is perfect...

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
tvellalott
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,507 times Debate No: 12559
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (10)

 

tvellalott

Con

Hello debaters.
After a heated exchange with my opponent I've decided to put it to you, the people on who has the stronger argument.
I purpose that Islam is NOT PERFECT.
I purpose that Islam is IMPERFECT.

I am using definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com...):
2) ...excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement.
3) ....exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose
4) ...entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings
8) ...unqualified; absolute

If my opponent does not agree to these definitions, we can discuss them in the comment section until we come to an agreement.

Based on my opponents comment in the "Propaganda: Why attach it to Islam" forum: "Coming to islam, by perfection, I am saying that islam is the most perfect way of life in establishing peace when it's laws are followed. This is the perfection being claimed. Hope that this is much more clearer...", I don't think he should have any problems with the definitions I have given.

We will start our debate in round 2.
I look forward to ending this debate.

Thank you.
Fatihah

Pro

As stated, I accept that islam is the perfect religion. And as quoted, I 've stated what I mean by that perfection. Yet my opponent claims that islam is imperfect. Thus it is the duty of my opponent to show that following the laws of islam does not lead to the best form of peace. Again, we are relating to islam, which derives from the qur'an and sunnah. Thus any law in which my opponent claims leads to imperfection when establishing peace must come from the qur'an or sunnah. I await his response.
Debate Round No. 1
tvellalott

Con

OPPONENT STATEMENT 1: "I accept that islam is the perfect religion."
OPPONENT STATEMENT 2: "Thus it is the duty of my opponent to show that following the laws of islam does not lead to the best form of peace."
OPPONENT STATEMENT 3: "Thus any law in which my opponent claims leads to imperfection when establishing peace must come from the qur'an or sunnah."

We are all aware that right now Muslims are attacking and killing people and themselves. This is a fact. Extremist suicide bombers are real.
My opponent will argue that these are not true Muslims. That they are not following the laws set out in the Qu'ran. This leads me to my first point:
=================
Islam's scriptures are imperfect: How else do you explain the fact that they can be so badly misinterpreted?
=================
Here are a few quotes from the Qu'ran...
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Believe me when I say that I know that normal, reasonable, sensible Muslims exist; Muslims who understand the context of these quotes. That is beside the point. The fact remains that if anyone wanted to, they could easily interpret these quotes as "Go and fight and terrify non-believers and you will be bestowed a vast reward."
They wouldn't even have to try very hard, as I basically just paraphrased the quotes and used exactly the same words that were already there. Extremist Islamic leaders can quickly incite violence and murder just by reading these sorts of quotes.

Before I pose my next argument, let me define Peace. If my opponent has any problem with these definitions, let him provide a better one in round two.
Peace, the normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world.
Peace, a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, esp. in personal relations.
In otherwords, not fighting.
======================
Buddhism: A much more peaceful religion than Islam.
======================
I can already tell you, based on this very statement being purposed to my opponent what I expect his counter-argument will be: "Islam promotes Peace, but if someone needs to defend themselves and their families, shouldn't they be allowed to?"
That is fine. However, let's talk for a moment about the founders of the two religions; Don't the followers look to the founder as an example?
Mohummad, founder of Islam waged a Holy war against his enemies. This is a historical fact.
Buddha, found of Buddhism did not wage any war.
It stands to reason that Islamic people are more likely to physically fight for a cause than Buddhists.
There is nothing wrong with that, but this sort of mentality will soon see you stripped of your 'Most Peaceful Religion' title very quickly.

CONCLUSION: I have shown that Islam is not perfect. There are thousands apon thousands of followers around the world who are misinterpreting the holy Qu'ran. This leads to them killing themselves and innocent people.
My opponent should convert to Buddhism immediately.

Thank you.
Fatihah

Pro

As Salaamu Alaikum

My opponent wishes to demonstrate that islam is imperfect. We must first be reminded that by perfection in islam, I referred to islam as the most perfect way of life in establishing peace. In other words, islam's way of establishing peace is perfect if its laws are practiced. So my opponent presents the following verses:

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

So far, my opponent has referred to the qur'an. Good. However, we run into a problem. You see, I stated that islam is perfect in establishing peace if its laws are followed. Thus it is the responsibility of my opponent to show that following some laws in islam does not lead to peace, thus islam is imperfect. Yet amazingly, after posting a lengthy rebuttle, he dodges his responsibility! Take notice. He did not show from any of the verses, that if followed, it doesn't lead to peace. Simply amazing. You challenge someone to a debate, but don't actually debate the topic. Thus his own words and his dodging of the topic is evidence to the fact that islam is a perfect in establishing peace. Otherwise, my opponent would not be dodging the topic.

Instead, he uses a strawman. Instead of showing us that some of the laws, if followed in the qur'an does not lead to peace, he instead presents the following argument:

"The fact remains that if anyone wanted to, they could easily interpret these quotes as "Go and fight and terrify non-believers and you will be bestowed a vast reward."
They wouldn't even have to try very hard, as I basically just paraphrased the quotes and used exactly the same words that were already there. Extremist Islamic leaders can quickly incite violence and murder just by reading these sorts of quotes."

According to my opponent's logic, if someone wants to interpret the qur'an into a meaning other than the actual meaning of the qur'an, and they choose an unjust violent interpretation at that, this means that islam is not perfect in establishing peace. However, my opponent's example just further proves my point. For a misinterpretation of something means that it is not the actual interpretation. So someone who purposely interprets the qur'an into an unjust violent interpretation is not proving that islam is not peaceful, because their interpretation is not from islam. It's a misinterpretation. So my opponents example, in no such way, disproves that islam is perfect in establishing peace. Moving on.

My opponent now suggests that because the verses in which he quoted suggest that muslims should fight, that this somehow means that islam is imperfect in establishing peace, because peace means "not fighting". But what did I say in my opening statement? I stated that islam is perfect in "establishing" peace. So yes, peace is not fighting. However, we are referring to establishing peace, not what peace is. So the point is irrelevant. The question is, is fighting a perfect way to establish peace? The answer is yes, in the case of self-defense. For if someone insist on violence towards you, the best and most perfect way to prevent the attack and restore peace is to fight back. Not only that, but to only fight until the attack towards you decease, for muslims should not transgress. So once again, islam demonstrates itself as a perfect way to establish peace.
Debate Round No. 2
tvellalott

Con

Assalaamu Alaikum to you too bud.

I wish to stress the word PERFECT. My opponent doesn't seem to understand the meaning.
PERFECT does NOT mean "Really good"
PERFECT does NOT mean "One of the best"
PERFECT means WITHOUT FAULT; FLAWLESS.

Ok, now we've established this, let me get onto my rebuttals.
[quotes]"...In other words, islam's way of establishing peace is perfect if its laws are practiced..."
"...Thus it is the responsibility of my opponent to show that following some laws in islam does not lead to peace, thus islam is imperfect..."[endquotes]
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about this...
Let me quote a few more verses of that perfectly peaceful piece of prose.
2:39, 90: Disbelievers will be burned with fire.
2:104: For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:178: Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom.
3:157: If you die fighting for Allah, you'll be rewarded in heaven.
9:5: Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
These are just a very, very small sample of over 500 quotes [1] in the Qu'ran that speak of violence against/endless torture of non-believers simply because they are non-believers. Particularly note 9:5 and 3:157.
I'm afraid that I couldn't be clearer. If you follow the Qu'ran, you must 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them' and 'if you die fighting for Allah, you'll be rewarded in heaven.'

[quote]"According to my opponent's logic, if someone wants to interpret the qur'an into a meaning other than the actual meaning of the qur'an, and they choose an unjust violent interpretation at that, this means that islam is not perfect in establishing peace."[endquote]
Ummm... no? My logic is that if something is very, very clear about it's meaning (ie. imperfect) than it is open to interpretation...

[quote]"For a misinterpretation of something means that it is not the actual interpretation."[endquote]
Huh? Hang on... I think you meant "A misinterpretation means it is not the actual meaning." but even that isn't correct...

[quote]"So someone who purposely interprets the qur'an into an unjust violent interpretation is not proving that islam is not peaceful, because their interpretation is not from islam. It's a misinterpretation."[endquote]
I don't know how my opponent comes to this conclusion, but it is clearly very silly.
A misinterpretation is not intentional.
A misinterpretation is a MIStaken INTERPRETATION, in other words 'whoops, I accidentally read 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them' and 'if you die fighting for Allah, you'll be rewarded in heaven.' and thought it actually meant "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them and if you die fighting for Allah, you'll be rewarded in heaven."

[quotes]"...by perfection in islam, I referred to islam as the most perfect way of life in establishing peace..."
"But what did I say in my opening statement? I stated that islam is perfect in "establishing" peace."
"The question is, is fighting a perfect way to establish peace? The answer is yes, in the case of self-defense."[endquotes]
Self-defense has nothing to do with establishing peace. Self-defense is when someone attacks you and you defend yourself. I'm not against that. Fighting is a good way of defending yourself.
My opponent then says "Is fighting a perfect way to establish peace?", answers his own questions, but adds "In the case of self-defense."
This is complete nonsense.
Fighting IS NOT the 'perfect' way to establishing peace. Fighting is not even a half-decent way of establishing peace.
Fighting is a TERRIBLE way of establishing peace.
A much better way of establishing peace is with normal, sensible discussion, duh.

CONCLUSION: Islam is not the perfect religion of peace.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Fatihah

Pro

As salaamu alaikum

My opponent has once again failed in his responsibility. You see, it is the responsibility of my opponent to show a law from the qur'an which does not lead to peace and why. Let us see now if my opponent was capable of doing so.

He says:

"Let me quote a few more verses of that perfectly peaceful piece of prose.
2:39, 90: Disbelievers will be burned with fire.
2:104: For disbelievers is a painful doom.
2:178: Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom.
3:157: If you die fighting for Allah, you'll be rewarded in heaven.
9:5: Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.
These are just a very, very small sample of over 500 quotes [1] in the Qu'ran that speak of violence against/endless torture of non-believers simply because they are non-believers. Particularly note 9:5 and 3:157.
I'm afraid that I couldn't be clearer. If you follow the Qu'ran, you must 'Slay the idolaters wherever you find them' and 'if you die fighting for Allah, you'll be rewarded in heaven.'"

As expected, my opponent fails to present a law from the qur'an which does not establish peace. He quotes from the qur'an several verses, yet at no time does he explain or give any sound logic as to how the verses do not establish peace. Why? Because he can't. If he could, he would have easily done so. The fact that he couldn't expound on the verses in which he quoted is evidence from his own words themself that there is no law in islam which does not establish peace. Now let's analyze the verses to see if peace does get established. You see, every verse in which my opponent quoted are punishments for wrong doing. So that leads to the question, "Is punishing those who do wrong the perfect way to establish peace"? Of course, the answer is yes. To say otherwise would be absurd. I wonder what my opponent would consider be done to a person who rapes or steals or murders. Do you suggest we prescrible for them milk and cookies for their actions? Of course not. It would be foolish. To maintain a peaceful society, these wrongdoers should be punished. For naturally, punishment discourages the person from doing wrong again, which helps to estsblish peace within a society. In short, my opponent failed to produce any law from the qur'an which is not perfect in establishing peace. To the contrary, he helped in proving my point with the verses he quoted, for the verses in which he quoted are punishments for wrong doing, and to punish those who do wrong is the perfect way to establish peace within a society.

Then he says:

"I don't know how my opponent comes to this conclusion, but it is clearly very silly.
A misinterpretation is not intentional.
A misinterpretation is a MIStaken INTERPRETATION,..."

My opponent couldn' be any more wrong. A misinterpretation by definition is a false definition. Who says so? The dictionary says so. Whether it is done by a mistake or not is irrelevant. Once again, my opponent is wrong.

He then says:

"Self-defense has nothing to do with establishing peace. Self-defense is when someone attacks you and you defend yourself. I'm not against that. Fighting is a good way of defending yourself."

Then the words of my opponent themself is more evidence that supports my argument, not his. For he just stated that fighting is a good way to defend yourself. The problem he has is that for the oddest reason, he states that self-defense has nothing to do with establishing peace. He couldn't be farther from the truth. If someone insisted on fighting you, you would actually try to have a discussion in the midst of the fight? Really? And according to you, this is the perfect way to establish peace? Do I really have to explain how absurd this is? Who new everyone. Attention readers, the next time someone tries to attack you, you shouldn't try to fight them off. This is not the way to bring about peace. Instead, while the person is punching and slapping you around, you should try to have a discussion on why your getting your butt whipped. This is the best way to bring peace. Surely, we can see the nonsense of my opponent's logic. Clearly, fighting in self-defense is the perfect way to establish peace.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to show a law in the qur'an or sunnah which is not perfect in establishing peace. For it is cleary impossible for him to do so, for islam is perfect in establishing peace.
Debate Round No. 3
tvellalott

Con

I'd like to thank my wonderful opponent for what has been a very telling debate. I wish him all the best.

Now, lets get into my final round rebuttals and conclusion.

"...You see, it is the responsibility of my opponent to show a law from the qur'an which does not lead to peace and why..."
"...at no time does he explain or give any sound logic as to how the verses do not establish peace..."
"...The fact that he couldn't expound on the verses in which he quoted is evidence from his own words themself that there is no law in islam which does not establish peace..."
"...every verse in which my opponent quoted are punishments for wrong doing..."
And it goes on and on...
"...I wonder what my opponent would consider be done to a person who rapes or steals or murders. Do you suggest we prescrible for them milk and cookies for their actions?..."
and on...
"...In short, my opponent failed to produce any law from the qur'an which is not perfect in establishing peace..."
I strongly beg to differ.
First of all, the quotes which I used in round two all directly point NOT at "wrong-doers", but at disbelievers.
Herein lies the problems with this entire debate.
My opponent is a Muslim. He will not go to an eternal pit of fire when he dies. However, according to the Qu'ran I will because I do not believe that Allah exists.
Which is why I have continually stressed the definition of the word "PERFECT".
If your laws do not improve the lives (and afterlives) of non-Muslims(ie. wrong-doers), that is a flaw.

The second point I'd like to stress concerns my opponents repeated use of the word "establish".
Does he know what this word means?
Let me refresh his memory...
Establish: "to found, institute, build, or bring into being on a firm or stable basis"
Let us forget the word "Perfect" for a minute...
Just ask yourself: What is a better way to bring about peace, violence or non-violence?
CLEARLY, it is non-violence.
So if there is a better way of bringing about peace than violence(ie. fighting) how can it be the 'perfect way of establishing peace'... The same could also clearly said for maintaining peace.
Violence is not the perfect way, I don't care how many times my opponent says it and I'm sure any reasonable person will agree with me.

Misinterpret: "to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly."
If something is subject to such gross misinterpretation as the Qu'ran, it is not perfect. I've stressed this point enough.

My opponents second last paragraph in round three is again about fighting and peace. I have already addressed this. I'll reiterate in my conclusion.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
-The Qu'ran is subject to gross misinterpretation, thus it is not perfect.
-The Qu'ran and the acts of the prophet Mohammad are full of violence and killing. Violence and killing are not peaceful.
-Violence is not the PERFECT way of establishing OR maintaining peace.
-The Qu'ran does not look kindly on non-Muslims, which I see as a flaw. If it has a flaw then it is not perfect.
-Buddhism is much more peaceful than Islam.

I feel over the course of this debate I have shown these five points to be very much true.
I look forward to seeing my opponents final round arguments.

VOTE CON!
Fatihah

Pro

As salaamu alaikum

We now approach the end of our debate. Let us now analyze the rebuttle of my opponent and see if he has demonstrated that islam is not perfect in establishing peace when it is followed.

He says:

"My opponent is a Muslim. He will not go to an eternal pit of fire when he dies. However, according to the Qu'ran I will because I do not believe that Allah exists."

Thus my opponent insinuates that because a disbeliever will go to hell for disbelieving, then islam is not perfect in establishing peace. Such a statement is very flawed. First and foremost, a disbeliever does not go to hell for simply disbelieving. Those who reject islam are prescribed hell. In other words, if you were exposed to the truth of islam and rejected it, then the hell fire is prescribed. But if you were never exposed to the truth of islam and disbelieve because of it, then the hell fire is not prescribed. In the hadith of Sahih Muslim, Book 37 number 6662, we read that a man killed 99 people. He wished for a learned man to show him a way to salvation for his actions. He asked a Monk how to get salvation and the man told him that it would not be granted to him. So the man killed the monk. His death toll is now 100. He then finds a scholar and asks how can he get salvation after killing 100 people. The scholar says to go to such and such land of peity. There he will find a people devoted to worship and prayer. So he takes the journey, but halfway there, death overtakes him. So the angels disputed as to where the man should go in the afterlife. The angels of mercy said that he has come to Allah in remorse, favoring he should get paradise. The angels of punishment say the man did no good, favoring hell as his dwelling. So an angel in the form of a person came to decide the matter. The angel stated to measure the distance between the land which he left to the place of his death and compare the distance to the distance between the land of peity to which he was going and the place of his death. Whichever land he was closest to will determine his judgment. The man was closer to land of peity, so the man was granted paradise.

Al hamdu lilah. What a beauty. Here we have a disbeliver who did no good but was still granted paradise because in the last minute of his life, he was a disbeliever, but was still seeking the truth and not rejecting it. In short, this is not only proof that all disbelievers go to hell simply because they disbelieve, but it demonstrates the most gracious and merciful attitude of Allah, for a person who was a massive murderer all his life was still granted paradise. Another example of the true beauty of islam. Moving on.

As demonstrated, disbelievers are not punished simply because they disbelieve, but because they know the truth and reject it. As such, the disbeliever is being punished for wrong doing. For if one knows that islam is true, then they know that Allah is the creator and originator. That every good that is in their life is due to Allah. This would mean that Allah should be appreciated and respected. So to know that Allah is responsible for the good that comes to you, yet you reject showing love and appreciation to Allah, then it is very much a reasonable decision from Allah to not reward such disgraceful behavior in the afterlife. Do you reward a person who does not appreciate you? No. Is refusing to reward bad behavior an imperfect way of establishing peace? Of course not. In order to establish peace, you must discoursage bad behavior. And since the punishment from Allah is based on wrong and bad behavior, then the punishment of the hell fire to disbelievers IS a perfect way to establish peace, for it is a punishment to discourage wrongful and bad behavior. In short, my opponent's example is flawed, as clearly demonstrated.

He then says:

"Just ask yourself: What is a better way to bring about peace, violence or non-violence?
CLEARLY, it is non-violence.
So if there is a better way of bringing about peace than violence(ie. fighting) how can it be the 'perfect way of establishing peace'... The same could also clearly said for maintaining peace."

Again, my opponent insists on ignoring the fact that violence is the perfect way to establish peace in a case of self-defense. My opponent still insist on the absurd logic that if someone persists on attacking you, that violence is not the perfect defense. According to his logic, when someone is in the midst of punching and slapping you around, it is best that you try to have a discussion with the person in the middle of your beatdown. This is clearly not the perfect solution. Talking to someone while they're punching you in the face not only does not prevent the attack and restore peace, but it leaves you battered and bruised. Cleary, my opponents method is not the perfect solution. Ask any person who's been raped or robbed that when they were under attack, they actually prevented it by talking. Of course not. They had to use violence to defend from the attack. My opponents logic not only does not prevent the attack and restore peace, but it leaves the person who was attacked battered and beaten. Clearly, my opponent's logic is flawed, and any reasonable person can see that.

He then says:

"Misinterpret: "to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly."
If something is subject to such gross misinterpretation as the Qu'ran, it is not perfect. I've stressed this point enough".

This is a strawman of my opponent. The debate is whether islam is perfect in establishing peace, not whether it is perfect in preventing interpretation.

In conclusion: My opponent has failed to show a law from the qur'an which is not perfect in establishing peace. The violence mentioned in the qur'an is very much justified and is perfect in establishing peace, because the violence refers to self-defense. And to use violence to defend against a violent attack is far more perfect to establish peace than to have a discussion in the middle of getting whipped as my opponent says. Those of us who are reasonable can clearly see that. His take on interpretation is a strawman, for the topic is whether islam is perfect in establishing peace, not whether it is perfect in preventing different interpretation. The qur'an itself says that it is susceptible to different interpretation. (surah 3:7). So do not let his strawman affect your decision. It was never the subject. As for his comment that the qur'an does not look kindly to non-muslims, the hadith of Sahih muslim, book 37, number 6662 debunks such a claim as well as the fact that my opponent showed no example of non-muslims being treated unkindly in an injust manner and every example in which he presented to show otherwise was clearly refuted and debunked. Thus my opponent has failed in his attempt. Islam is in fact perfect in establishing peace as I have clearly demonstrated.

As Salaamu Alaikum
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
That shouldnt have even close. there was no comments?
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
tvellalott snatches victory at the last moment.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
"I'm sure I saw that quote before I ever saw ann. But whatever, its a great quote."

Aww... I thought I was unique...
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
I'm sure I saw that quote before I ever saw ann. But whatever, its a great quote.

Just wish the armies knew that.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
Yours was definitely better, tvellalott. I think you're getting vote bombed... Also, love the use of my quote. Words of wisdom, man.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
If you're going to vote for Fatihah, that's fine but at least tell me why you think his argument is better. In the words of ann, fighting for peace is like fvucking for virginity.

this is idiotic!
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
this is a joke. 14 of the votes for Fatihah are by people I've never seen before.
Posted by Prox 6 years ago
Prox
I'm surprised this is so close.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
I can't believe I'm losing this debate. WTF.
Posted by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
"Also, I love how Fatihah actually put effort into this debate unlike the one with Tarzan. I will give him a few points for trying."

You must have watched a different debate.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
tvellalottFatihahTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 6 years ago
thisoneguy
tvellalottFatihahTied
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 GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 6 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
tvellalottFatihahTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
tvellalottFatihahTied
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 annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
tvellalottFatihahTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
tvellalottFatihahTied
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 popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
tvellalottFatihahTied
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 axM62 6 years ago
axM62
tvellalottFatihahTied
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 InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
tvellalottFatihahTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by PhatHeadPhil 6 years ago
PhatHeadPhil
tvellalottFatihahTied
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