The Instigator
DoubleXMinus
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

The Council on Foreign Relations (The CFR) is a shady organization.

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: 5/17/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,181 times Debate No: 4078
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (17)

 

DoubleXMinus

Pro

First a background: The CFR was founded in 1921 by Colonel House(1) (a Marxist(2), ah!) and received important funding from the Rockefeller Foundation(!) and the Carnegie Foundation(!) by the late 20's.(3) It has become more and more influential since then and the longer it has been around, the more presidents there have been who are members. That's a well-known fact and can be found on the official website of the CFR as general knowledge. Example: All the presidential candidates right now? All members.

(1)http://www.cfr.org...

(2)House was the author of the book, "Philip Dru: Administrator…" In this book House says his goal is for "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." (Circumstantial, but it's harder to prove he isn't a Marxist than to prove that he is which is really bad enough so go on – try it.
http://www.amazon.com...

(3) http://www.hirhome.com... (Go down real quick to the "Who is behind the CFR" part and it's right there, so don't be discouraged.)

Why is this background a bad thing? Colonel House was co-president alongside Wilson during most of his presidency (Wilson himself referring to House as his "alter-ego") and it was during Wilson's presidency when things such as the The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment were passed into law. Before Wilson was even president, the people who financed his campaign were international bankers such as Rothschild and Rockefeller… So, this House guy (who it can be argued was the real president during this time and Wilson his puppet) is not coming from an innocent place and the policies we see connected to him are disgusting. You ever heard anyone tell you that if you want to know what a candidate is all about, you should go and see who's financing their campaign?

Okay, so the guy who founded the CFR is factually pretty shady himself and now we have a whole organization created in his image that likes to "make recommendations" to our presidents as to what our foreign policy should be? Have we not already seen and know well what kind of policies House favours (Federal Reserve Act)? And who invested in this organization to even make it what it is today?: International bankers, yay! (Remember Rockefeller and Carnegie up there ^?) *They* really have our best interest at heart, eh? I'll go into this in more detail upon the acceptance of the challenge. Someone who accepts the challenge is accepting this:

1. You must counter my allegations of shadiness directed toward the CFR.
2. You should want to show how the CFR is really a good thing. Not something to be worried about, but something to like.

You = The CFR is good and this is why...

My burdens include:

1. I must create doubts in people's minds as to the authenticity of this questionable organization.
2. I must convince people more convincingly than you counter that the CFR is a threat to us common folk and takes away our voice in our very own democracy.

Me = The CFR is bad and this is why...

Alright?
beem0r

Con

First I'll respond to my opponent's opening arguments, then I'll make my own case if necessary.

========
Background / Points:
========
My opponent explains the origins of the organization. Few actual points here, though there is an unspoken point about the Marxist views of the founder. As my opponent states:
- In this book House says his goal is for "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx."

This is not a point in itself. My opponent has not shown why "socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx" is shady. Also, consider that the organization has no official positions on matters of policy - whatever positions their members put forth are likely to be the most dominant in the organization. A direct quote from their website:

"The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization [...] the Council takes no institutional positions on matters of policy."

Thus, the views of the founder are rather irrelevant, no? The founder's dead, anyway.

Also, my opponent suggests that the Federal Reserve Act, among others proposed by the CFR, make the organization shady. However, he fails to back this up, except with a link to a 7+ minute long video. Am I required to respond not only to my opponent's argument, but also to a 7+ minute video, all in 8000 characters? I think not. If my opponent wants to argue that the Federal Reserve Act or other acts make the organization shady, I will gladly debate that issue. In short, the video my opponent posted displays a lack of knowledge on the economic issues the Fed aims to address. It is propaganda aimed at an uninformed audience with little to no background in economics. If my opponent wishes to hold on to these points, I ask that he make his own arguments for me to respond to, in his actual round. Once again, I cannot be expected to respond directly to a link, since this allows my opponent's arugments to be vast, where my response is limited to 8000 characters.

Then my opponent suggests that since big businesses back the CFR, it MUST be shady! He bases this argument only on what he hopes are your own personal feelings. However, remember that he has not substantiated this argument. He has not shown WHY or HOW big businesses backing the CFR makes the organization shady. Thus, I have nothing to respond to. They back the organization because the organization benefits them. That doesn't mean it hurts the rest of America.

========
Burdens:
========
My opponent suggests that it is my burden to show that "The CFR is good and this is why"
This is nonsense. I do not have to show that it is good, I have to show that it is not shady. Otherwise, there is room for a complete and utter tie. What if I show that it is not shady, but I don't show that it's a good thing? In this case, I would have fulfilled my burden to negate the resolution, but I would fail in the burden my opponent places on me. Thus, it can only be said that I must argue that "The CFR is not a shady organization."

However, in doing this, I may indeed show that it is a good thing anyway.

Next, he claims that he must only place doubt in your minds to win. However, he immediately contradicts this by claiming that he must show more convincingly than I that his side of the resolution is true. This is indeed what he must do, as it is always what one must do in a debate.

I have countered all my opponent's current allegations of shadiness. [All his points thus far were not backed, they were simply implicit allegations that go off unbacked assumptions.]

========
My argument:
========
The CFR is an organization whose "think-tank" thinks deeply on policy issues, and then allows the organization to offer people well thought-out ideas and information about said issues. Here's an excerpt from their official website:

"Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations’ David Rockefeller Studies Program. We are the Council’s “think tank.” We are an important part of the Council’s mission to produce and disseminate ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments. We do that by thinking, writing, and speaking about a broad range of foreign policy issues."

This could hardly be called shady. The group exists to give people sound policy advice, and it largely succeeds. It has likely been helpful to the US, due to its frequent advice often being utilized by the Government.

That'll be it from me this round, I don't want to waste my opponent's next round with rebuttal, I'd like to see what arguments for his side he has in store for us.
Also, good luck to my opponent, and may this be an enjoyable debate. I expect it will be.
Debate Round No. 1
DoubleXMinus

Pro

--Background/Points:--

Definition of Marxism: The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.

http://www.answers.com...

Are we supposed to be a capitalist country or a country on its way to communism? That the founder of the CFR was a Marxist seems in sharp contrast to what this country is all about and sort of ironic. So the founder of this organization, with his communist ideals, padded himself and what he was creating with international banker investments to build from the ground up… what exactly? A great tool for the public at large so that they may educate themselves better as to our foreign policy? Lol, yeah…

"Also, consider that the organization has no official positions on matters of policy…"

That's right, that's what the website says. However, the website also specifies that it does indeed "make recommendations" to the president of the US at any one given time. These recommendations are often implemented into law as we saw after World War II with president Roosevelt (there goes the local governments, during his presidency Washington rose to its current strength over all of the states) and as we'll continue to witness today, tomorrow, next year… and so on. (1)

Consider this quote for a second by Admiral Chester Ward, who's a former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy. He says, "Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. government should adopt a particular policy… the very substantial research facilities of the (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy… and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition." (2)

Niiice, good. Now aren't we all happy it says it doesn't have any official political stance? Except, of course, for when it goes on to say that the CFR seeks to, "cooperate with the government and all existing agencies and to bring them into constructive accord." And lol, you yourself said, "…It has likely been helpful to the US, due to its frequent advice often being utilized by the Government." Hmm.

So Beemor, help me to understand where you're going with this anyway… the CFR isn't shady because its website on the very surface says it isn't…? (I hope I'm not sounding too sarcastic, I do like you…)

--Federal Reserve Act/16th Amendment--

"Also, my opponent suggests that the Federal Reserve Act, among others proposed by the CFR, make the organization shady…" -- The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment (which you seemed to imply you have extensive economical knowledge of) weren't proposed by the CFR at all, they were pushed through congress during Woodrow Wilson's presidency. It has been alleged that Wilson agreed to passing these policies while he was still merely the Rockefeller backed candidate still running for president… I brought these two policy changes up in order to show what kind of man Colonel House was (remember, Wilson's alter-ego and the only one out of the two who never expressed remorse for these decisions…) because after all, what's more telling than actual policy decisions we see materialize under these men's watch? However, I find it sort of disheartening that you didn't know that?

--CFR Equals Big Business--

"Then my opponent suggests that since big businesses back the CFR, it MUST be shady…"

CFR.org claims that it, "is composed of men and women from all walks of international life and from all parts of America." But they LIE, and that is, of course, pretty shady. Its membership is in all reality still largely comprised of just more of the same when it comes to its founders; and this is another reason why it's important who the founders were. The CFR is still mostly white rich men who are predominantly corporate in background and viewpoints. It goes something like, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, John, David, and Nelson Rockefeller and so on…(also 2) Influential members who even know what's going on -- "life members" --… white, rich, male. (I encourage everybody to go and read how life members even get to be that way…) http://www.cfr.org...

"They [big business] back the organization because the organization benefits them. That doesn't mean it hurts the rest of America."

How do we know they're not hurting us? If they had no intention of doing so, then more than 50 percent(3) of their board meetings would be open to the public. There's no way to tell what they're scheming and dreaming up in there half of the time, why should that be acceptable?

But here I'll go on to:

Two Reasons Why The CFR Is Hurting America:

1. They undermine our democracy, voters don't count.

They dominate our foreign policy (which I have shown above) so what does it matter who or what we vote for? Plus, all of the presidential candidates this year are members and "had been briefed" by the CFR excluding only two: Ron Paul and Mike Gravel. These are the only people we have to vote for in the first place, let alone trying to cling to any illusion of substantial influence.

2. They aim to abolish our United States sovereignty.

Yeah, I know… big claim. However, stay with me and let's look at what the President of the CFR (Richard N. Haas) has to say about it, "…states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change… Sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization… Globalization thus implies that sovereignty… needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…"(4)

I'll go more into this in my next round.

Burdens:

I accept Beemor's redefining of the burdens.

His Argument:

It seems he's saying the CFR is good for us because it says it is… Okay, got it. ;) Thanks for accepting, Bee… you're much better to debate than Geekis was.

(1) http://www.cfr.org...
(2) http://www.nowpublic.com...
(3)" Many Council meetings are held on a not-for-attribution basis to encourage frankness among participants who may be hesitant to express new or developing ideas if they feared that they would be publicized. An *increasing number* of Council meetings—nearly 50 percent—are conducted on an on-the-record basis." http://www.cfr.org...
(4) http://www.project-syndicate.org...
beem0r

Con

RE:sponse mode.
========
RE: Marxism
========
Frankly, it matters not what the founder believed in. The truth is that policy recommendations from the CFR do not reflect a Marxist approach to politics. When the founder died, whatever he wanted to do through the organization died with him. What's left is a functional, helpful tool to political leaders and others who are curious about foreign policy issues.
Since my opponent has made no connections between the CFR and Marxism except through the beliefs of the founder, it is a point with no backing. Marxism is irrelevant to this debate.

========
RE: "CFR Makes Recommendations"/Official stances
========
Of course they do. They're an organization whose sole purpose is to come up with workable policies and inform the public on foreign policy issues. It's not surprising that they also make recommendations. Even so, this does not mean that the organization has official positions. It is dynamic. This allows it to judge each situation based on significant specifics, rather than based on some overall dogmatic position they feel they must stand by. Incidentally, that sounds like a good idea.
And since they're sound, well-backed recommendations, they're often used.
And I have been given no evidence that they DO have official stances, other than the "The founder was Marxist" argument, which I already responded to.

========
RE: The Admiral's Quote
========
Here's the quote for reference:
"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. government should adopt a particular policy… the very substantial research facilities of the (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy… and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."

Here's a tidbit that might clear up the motive behind such action: opposition to a policy will reduce its acceptance, and this has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of the policy, or even of the entire government. Making arguments in favor of a policy you support is not shady. Ironic, too, that such accusations are made on a debating website, of all places.

Of course they want arguments to back them up. "Discrediting the opposition" is something you always have to do if you want an idea accepted. Just as we presently seek to discredit each other in this very debate.

========
RE: "Bring X and Y into constructive accord"
========
Probably because this is the most helpful thing to do? I'm not sure what's bad about bringing governments, etc, into constructive accord.

========
RE: "So the CFR isn't shady because the website says it isn't?"
========
Yes and no. Just becasue they say it does not mean it is true, I admit that. However, the material I have cited from them does in fact resemble reality. If it was factually incorrect, it would be rather easy to point it out, would it not? They really do "produce and disseminate ideas so that individual and corporate members, as well as policymakers, journalists, students, and interested citizens in the United States and other countries, can better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments." They really don't have official stances.

========
RE: Federal Reserve Act / 16th Amendment
========
I assumed that the Federal Reserve act was recommended by the CFR after reading my your first round. Seems I misread, and it was simply something suggested by the founder of the organization. Let's consider a few things here.
A> The Federal Reserve Act has not been shown to be detrimental to the everyman. [And in fact, I would argue that it is helpful to the everyman, but that is for another debate.]
B> Whether or not the Federal Reserve Act is good or bad, it is not connected to the CFR, so it wouldn't even show anything in that case.

Also, I don't have extensive economic knowledge, but I have enough to see that the video you posted was made with an economically ignorant audience in mind, as most of the points in it do not really hold water, and rely mainly on the emotional response to the language used to get the points across.

========
RE: Big Business
========
Let's consider a few things.
First, could it be that Big Business is interested in the CFR because Big Business thrives on sound foreign policy? What helps America helps Big Business more than anyone, since they're so... big.
Second, my opponenet suggets that many or even most of the CFR members are rich white men. This may sound shady, if you take a conspiracy theorist look at it first, but think how much that makes sense anyway.

Most people with successful politics carrers are rich, white, and male. Successful here leads directly to rich. It's no doubt poor people aren't members of the CFR: If they didn't have what it takes to be successful in life, they didn't have what it takes to be part of the CFR. Harvard and Yale aren't shady just because they're selective, and neither is the CFR.

Next, white. Well first off, most people in America are white. Second, it is an unfortunate fact that being white and male has been and still continues to be [to a smaler extent] a required criterion for people to completely take you seriously.
Here's a list of the top 13 richest American politicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Notice anything strange? ALL OF THEM are white. And ALL OF THEM are male. This isn't some conspiracy, it just happens to be the gender and race role that's played out. Men are more likely to have careers in the first place. Men are more likely to be taken seriously when they do have careers. Whites are more likely to have an interest in politics, and more likely to get a good education.

Thus, it is no surprise that the majority of members of the CFR are successful, white men. This isn't because of some left-behind shady criteria of the founders to look after their own, it's simply the fact that most of the qualified candidates for membership are rich, white, and male.

========
RE: "How do we know they're not hurting us?"
========
We don't, but it's ridiculous to say we don't know, so let's just assume they're hurting us.

========
RE: "They undermine our democracy, voters don't count."
========
Hah! Democracy? When did we have that? When's the last time you voted on a foreign policy issue? Never, that's right. Here in America, we've decided that the best way to do politics is to have specialized politicians make our policy decisions for us. We're a 'democratic' REPUBLIC.
And keeping with that oh-so-American notion of letting specialized politicians make policies the work for us, we get the CFR, which is simply a resource for them to use. The CFR does not have the power to implement policies, they can simply get their voice heard. Just like you, me, or anyone can. If that's not democratic, tell me what is.

========
RE: They aim to abolish our United States sovereignty.
========
As he said in the quote you provided, yes. If everyone keeps full, independent sovereignty, how will the world ever enforce agreements on things like environmental hazards? War? We should indeed submit to global emission standards, so that others might do the same. This isn't our world to do with as we please, it is everyone else's too.

Right now, that would seem to be the wisest course of action for the world, to preseve the environment we all depend on, irrespective of our country.

It's been great so far, I look forward to R3.
Debate Round No. 2
DoubleXMinus

Pro

Now Bee, listen, there's organization which is always appreciated… and then there's this spreading out thing that you do which makes something that should be 1 page into 3. Lol, I implore you to see that there is a difference. =P

Do Founders Really Matter:

My opponent has claimed that the beliefs of Colonel House are irrelevant to the organization he babied into existence, he claims it's not important to know any history or background (political or otherwise) because it just doesn't matter in terms of the present. Well, well – if only people such as employers thought that way, no? No longer would pedophiles be afraid to go and apply for work at daycare centers, how awesome… The fact of the matter is: history does matter. Connections matter, involvement matters and most importantly, the beliefs of a person who creates something matters to that something they create. House's belief was this, "America is the most undemocratic of democratic countries… Our constitution and our laws have served us well for the first hundred years of our existence, but under the conditions of today they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque."(1)

This debate is about if the CFR is a shady organization, it's not about if the CFR is really a Marxist monster trying to devour all of us into social dictatorship so try not to let Bee distract you with that.

The CFR Makes Recommendations:

Yes, the CFR makes recommendations that almost always become lawful policy. Bee has agreed with me that the organization is primarily white rich businessmen who clearly have a heavy hand in shaping our political past, present and future. He would have you believe that that's because these people are so enlightened and this organization so diverse and dynamic that our government just can't resist the goodness that is their advice… Yet, he has already agreed that this organization is far from diverse and dynamic in conceding that it's mostly made up of white rich men, you see it? It's really these corporate big cats who are running our country so it doesn't matter which president we elect to be the figurehead. After all, their "recommendations" are sure realized more than anything our presidents have ever promised to deliver.

The Admiral's Quote

…explains exactly why that is. That quote isn't explaining some fair debating process, it's explaining a shadow government that's running our country and how they're accomplishing it. Hence the, "CFR shadow government" part.

The CFR Isn't Shady 'Cause The Website Says It Isn't:

"Just becasue they say it does not mean it is true, I admit that. However, the material I have cited from them does in fact resemble reality. If it was factually incorrect, it would be rather easy to point it out, would it not?

Why, yes it is easy to point out. I have provided link after link pointing it out. The CFR is full of half truths when it comes to its explanation of itself and that is why there's so much material on how what they're saying and doing is wrong. You, however… have only cited information from the page itself -- so again we go right back to, "The CFR isn't shady because it says it isn't." We already know that the they don't want us thinking they're shady, but thank you anyway.

Big Business:

"First, could it be that Big Business is interested in the CFR because Big Business thrives on sound foreign policy?" -- What's your definition of sound foreign policy? Would you consider the decision to go into Iraq an expression of sound foreign policy? Big business is sure benefiting from our occupation there, so I guess to them it was indeed just that.

"What helps America helps Big Business more than anyone, since they're so... big." – Hmm, does war benefit America? It sure benefits international bankers and the like. What benefits this country as a whole and what benefits big business are two different things and they always have been.

Then you go on to label me a conspiracy theorist because I disagree with and am not regurgitating what the CFR site says… They're the ones who proclaim they have such a diverse membership, take it up with them why they can't just declare themselves an organization of corporate white rich men as they've always been and always will be.

Secret Board Meetings:

I never said that since we don't know for sure that they're not hurting us to just assume that they are (I have specified two reasons why they are), I was simply pointing out that they're secretive. What a tool for the public at large when half of the things they discuss aren't even disclosed to us.

1. They Undermine Our Democracy:

See "The CFR Makes Recommendations:" The people elect government officials to represent them and their interests, but the CFR and organizations like it are who actually represent America. What they want is what they get and what we want is irrelevant. For how many years have we seen this proven to us?

2. The CFR Aims To Abolish Our Sovereignty:

Bee's only response to this was that in the face of a threat, it *is* a good idea to give up sovereignty…… I don't agree?

"The sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization. Much will depend on the kind of approach that is used in further popular education." – 1994 Council on Foreign Relations Report. (4)

Now, I can offer plenty of quotes from former CFR insiders and qualified individuals as to the truth of what the CFR thinks of our sovereignty such as, Admiral Chester Ward (I only sited one of his quotes), Carrol Quigley, James Macgregor, Curtis Dall, more troubling CFR reports themselves and so on (also 4)… But I want to focus on the one I pulled out here as it relates to the Council on Foreign Relations, Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Consejo Mexicano de Ausuntos Internacionales sponsored press release of "The North American Community" in 2005.

What this report is doing is making more recommendations as to how we should strengthen NAFTA until there's little difference between our three countries. We have the presidential candidates of today going on about strengthening our border, and yet here we have evidence that what our white rich men who are running the country really want is the very opposite. I can't draw you an entirely inclusive picture of this because I'll run out of characters and everybody will get tired of me before then anyway, but here's this site that cuts to the chase, Beemor -- http://www.renewamerica.us...

And the report that it's drawing off of is here: http://www.cfr.org...

And the official report that I'm talking about is here: http://www.cfr.org...
For the official report, go down to page 24 and skim over it at least until page 28 and further if you'd like.

Conclusions:

The CFR is a secretive organization that is full of half truths when it comes to its explanation of itself. Its influential members are the sort with lots of money to pump into the "think tank" in order to have it spitting back out at them the ways and means in which to achieve their personal and corporate objectives. These corporate objectives have nothing but the best interest of the white elite in mind and not the best interest of America in general. Most of their recommendations are made into law and half of the time we don't even know what they are before it's already too late.

The CFR is in favour of an ever strengthening and connected North American Community that can only stop at one place… A North American Union. Therefore –they definitely undermine our sovereignty and that's obviously pretty shady and hurtful to the American public.

(1) http://www.canadafreepress.com...
(2) http://www.fdrs.org...
beem0r

Con

beem0r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Yeah, thanks.

You're probably right about them. Money is what really talks in our so-called democracy. Whether it be through lobbyists, organizations like this, or whatever, money is what really gets policies enacted. Not generally what the average American would consider ideal, since we're kind of raised to think that we all have an equal say in our government. I actually hadn't heard of them before this debate, but from what I've seen they're just another outlet that gives the rich much more say than the not-so-rich.

I don't really know much about ScorpionClone, except that I had a debate with him not too long ago. Why, what's up?
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
You're a really good guy, Bee -- thank you. But I believe you've earned your four votes and any others... You're really good at taking arguments apart, I think if it weren't for your being unable to post your closing argument I would've probably lost. Which, of course, would've been a great injustice! lol, cos they really are less than honourable -- but seems you might be a better debater.

By the way, you know anything about Scorpionclone?
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
I'm not sure how I have 4 votes. I didn't even vote for myself on this one. I urge everyone to vote for DoubleX on this.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Sorry bout missing round 3, I was out of town. Wish I could have responded, it was a good debate.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
I guess 4 white lines is a bit much, eh? I'll knock it down to 3, see if that works better. Been trying to make a standard way of separating points, but I keep doing it different ways.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Hoping to post my argument some time later today.
Posted by scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
wow the CFR is really shady
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Ugh, sorry about the crazy &#8217's and stuff in the quote I took from their page, hopefully it's clear enough what each of them are. If not, here's the source, it's the first paragraph:

http://www.cfr.org...
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I want to see a conservative on the CON.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
No semantics argument?!

Oh NOSE!

Well, you're a swell guy, Max.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 8 years ago
Tatarize
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 timothykcct 8 years ago
timothykcct
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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 Somnambulist 9 years ago
Somnambulist
DoubleXMinusbeem0rTied
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