The Instigator
Flipbook
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
SaintMichael741
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

The Democrats are not protecting the US Constitution right and have communist views.

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 8 votes the winner is...
SaintMichael741
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,163 times Debate No: 33724
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

Flipbook

Pro

Rules of debate:
1. Censor all vulgar vocabulary with pound (*) better yet, try not to cuss at all.
2. Mention nothing of gay marriage. It is off topic and too minor for this debate.
3. Be Clear, be fair

First Argument:
First I will state my thesis:

1. Hate Crimes
2. Gun Control
3. Banning sodas (why the heck would you do that??!?)

1. Hate Crimes

The metal band Threshold has a song called, Return Of The Thought Police. It does explaining on this subject. If you are going to say that if you do a crime, and you hate the person you committed the crime against, then you get extra penalty. You would put in jail for three years for murder, instead of two, because the person that you commit the crime against, stole your girlfriend. So therefore this person's life is based on something as trivial as girlfriends (in a political view, girlfriends will help your life).
Soon that will turn into corruption of the Judicial branch. People will get high amounts of pay for inventing memory changing system. When one is made, the Judicial branch starts wiping memory. The Judicial branch will wipe the very memory of freedom, the very memory of the constitution. Then America will be a army of mindless bodies doing the very wishes of the Judge.

2. Gun Control

Gun control is too quick of an act. It is the people killing, not the guns. As a matter of fact, it will take away the self defense part. Gun control actually threatens personal safety. Robbers and criminals still have weapons. But guns, who the people depend on, will not be in anyone's hands. Therefore the people cannot defend against themselves. Guns are a safety measure.

If you are going to ban guns, because they can kill people, you might as well ban silverware, cloth, trophies, medicine, writing utensils, matches, and even food and drink. All of those can kill people in some sort of way.

3. Banning Sodas:

I think most people like sprite, or coke, or Pepsi. Bloomberg tried to ban those. This is America, in America there is freedom. The freedom to call someone an idiot, the freedom to throw chairs on the ground, the freedom to grill pork, the freedom to paint. That is a violation of freedom.

America is based off of freedoms. It is proud to be a country of freedoms.
All three apply. We have the right to drink soda, we have the right to use rifles, and we have the right to hate. The Democrats are messing with these things they must not touch. This, smacks everything of communism.
SaintMichael741

Con

Before I begin to counter these flimsy points, I think that my opponent should understand what the word communism means:

a: a theory advocating elimination of private property
b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Even if my opponent believes that the Democrats are not protecting the rights outlined in the Constitution, he fails at relating communism to his three major points. That being said, let us go over these three points piece by piece.

1. Hate Crimes
First, I do not believe that a song should be used as any type of evidence to prove your point. There is a vast Internet full of documents and articles that could possibly support your argument. My opponent could go to the library and take out books on hate crimes. There is a lot of material on the subject to be found.

A hate crime is defined as:

"any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)" http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Explain to me how anything that my opponent said fits into this. It sounds like my opponent is more concerned about the judicial system getting paid off for a "Memory changing system".

2. Gun Control
My opponent that guns shouldn't be banned because people kill people. Furthermore, he states that guns are weapons in the same way that trophies and cloth are weapons. The reason why people want a gun ban in America is because weapons are a near perfect killing tool. There is very little skill involved, the killer does not need an optimal physique, and there is no training required. KEEP IN MIND I AM NOT STATING MY VIEWS ON THE GUN BAN. Merely, I am stating how the gun ban would theoretically lower crime rates by taking away one of the best tools for the job.

3. Banning Sodas

Quick lesson on Bloomberg. He started as a Democrat, became a republican in 2001, then became an independent politician in 2007. The ban was proposed when he was an independent. So bottom line? THIS ENTIRE POINT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE DEMOCRATS.

To conclude, shame on my opponent for saying that 'gay rights' is a minor issue. I know that it is against the rules to bring that up, but it is a major topic in modern America.

Also, I would invite my opponent to follow his own rules in being clear. My opponent would benefit from properly structured grammar and sentences.

I await your response. Good luck and thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Debate Round No. 1
Flipbook

Pro

Firstly nowhere did I say, that the Democrats were communists, I just said that they have communist beliefs. I talked to my friend who was a Democrat and he said he wanted to illegalize being mean. We have the right to be mean to people (not like we should). Secondly communists believe in more order, the kind that want exact control, that is what the Democrats are doing.

Hate Crimes

"How did our conscience get so seared, that we could all stand by, as history disappears before our eyes" -Threshold
"Until the memory of freedom is gone" -Threshold

Hate crimes is when someone who commits a crime is penalized for hate. THIS IS WRONG IN EVERY WAY. We will lose the right to be ourselves. We have the right to hate. Its just like in the dark ages. The King imprisoned, flogged, and even killed people for treason. We have the right to commit treason, in America, its called freedom of speech. In the dark ages its called treason. Hate crimes are trying to take that freedom away.

Gun Control

My opponent says that we should ban guns because they are the perfect killing tool. Well I want him to tell me in his next argument why criminals would need a perfect killing tool when they have to practice their weapon 24-7 otherwise they are sent to jail for even hate. But the people who need a gun for self defense, are broken. If a criminal comes up and takes his bow-and-arrow, or knife, or some other makeshift weapon once guns are banned. The guy who needs to defend himself is lost without his weapon (the gun). So when my opponent says that guns are the perfect killing tool, he doesn't realize that it is the perfect killing tool for the guy being wrongfully attacked by the criminal. While the criminal doesn't even need a perfect killing tool because his weapon is already perfect because he will go to jail if he doesn't perfect it.
Also, most guns are imported in illegal manners. Therefore, criminals can get guns just as easily if guns were banned. So both way's my opponent has been trapped for his own good. Going back to the thesis statement of my first argument, right to bear arms is in the second amendment. So banning that is exactly closing the argument. They are not protecting our constitution, they are destroying it. Soon we will have soldiers in our houses again.
Second Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org...

Bloomberg and his soda banning

This belief is Democratic, whether or not Bloomberg is a Democrat or not. This is exactly what I am saying, banning soda is against the Constitution.

No wonder Obama was the best candidate to run for the Democrats. Everyone votes for him because they say, I am not racist because I am voting for a black person. In fact, they are being racist by voting for a black person, because he is black. You can't get a free ticket out of racism.
SaintMichael741

Con

My opponent claims that he talked to his friend who said that he wanted to illegalize being mean. What does this mean? It sounds like his friend has a personal belief. You cannot illegalize being mean; that's a broad subject that lacks clear definition. Mean in what way? I invite my opponent to find an article online proving this statement.

1. Hate Crimes
First, again I ask when is a band a credible place of information about hate crimes. Music can make statements, but they are usually more focused on making good music that people want to listen to. Threshold is not a team of political analysts; they are a band. Also, do you understand what treason is? Here is a definition:

The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies. (1)

Treason is betraying the security of a country. This is done by selling secrets, selling government weapon/technology plans, etc. It does not cover hate crimes. Hate crimes get penalized more for hate because it's dangerous to the surrounding environment. Hate crimes can cause civil unrest in communities. Hate crimes are serious threats for many people around the world. How many hate crimes happen in the Middle East or in Africa because of nationality, religion, or beliefs? Lastly, how does this relate to the Democratic party. Both parties do not want to have hate crime happening on their watch; it won't win any voters or make for a happy country at all if it runs rampant in our streets. How are these communistic views?

2. Gun Control

I don't understand what my opponent is challenging me to argue. Is the challenge that a criminal will practice with a bow to commit a murder while the victim won't have access to his trusty gun? I don't think my opponent understand how a bow even works and how difficult it is to use one. That being said, saying that guns should be banned because guns are imported in illegal manners doesn't make any sense.

Does my opponent understand that the government is trying to regulate guns, not ban them? The government is well aware that we have the right to bear arms. Yes we can bear arms, but armor piercing rounds in a military grade assault rifle? Why would you need that to gun down an intruder in your house? How about a simple handgun? The point is that we should have the right to bear arms, but not to have a Call of Duty armament in our basements.

Also, how is this communistic? What does this have to do with democrats? My opponent fails to relate his points back to his central argument.

3. Soda Banning
How is soda banning communistic? How is banning soda against the constitution? I would like to see more specific information to back up this bizarre argument.

So my opponent believes that people voted for him because he was black. He believes that people voted for him to prove that they're not racist. Perhaps my opponent doesn't understand how politics work. People voted for them because they believed in his campaign promises, or at the very least liked him over his opponents.

I also call into question why my opponent believes the gay argument is "Off topic and minor".

Once again, I wish good luck to my opponent and await his response.

(1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Flipbook

Pro

Hate crimes are against the freedoms of America, they are against the Constitution and against the Bill Of Rights. They ruin the lives of people.

Hate Crimes

My opponent will not understand that I am merely using Threshold's quotes to emphasize the point he clearly mistakes as "bizarre." It is a perfect statement. My opponent thinks I am a hothead for even mentioning Threshold, he obviously doesn't know how to take things personal. It is putting on an embarrassing show Mr. SaintMichaelDemocrat. This is not protecting our Bill of Rights right. What has Obama done, but made us pay for the seniors and spend on... I don't even know! Hate crimes are a Democratic belief, so much for that point.

Original Communism Point

Communists believe that everyone will get the same amount of money of food. The Democrats are almost trying to become like China, and take away our freedoms.

Immigration

The Democrats want to give the illegals citizenship. That will have us lose our dirty work guys, but of course the Democrats will get more votes! And they will continue using their own trap. The latter Democrats have done nothing for us, except by a military standpoint. They are getting power hungry and corrupt.

Gun Control

Banning guns will not do anything good. My opponent is saying that the robbers have to use bow and arrows, because I mentioned them. Truth is, he doesn't understand how easy it is for robbers to get guns. So it will illegalize guns as a self defense weapon, but won't stop the illegal transport of guns through the border. If they can stop that, they probably can stop about anything. AND IF THE COULD, THEY STILL WONT!!!!!!!!!! Gun control will do no help, only harm.

Banning Sodas

"So bottom line? THIS ENTIRE POINT DOES NOT APPLY TO DEMOCRATS!!!"
-Saintmichael

If you see above, this guy thinks I am talking about Bloomberg himself, in truth, I am talking about his point. This thing is his Democrat part coming out.

My opponent just won't realize the corruption of the Democrats now!
SaintMichael741

Con

I refuse to argue with my opponent in an immature fashion. I'll let his basic misunderstanding of the basic English language be his undoing.

Hate crimes are against the freedoms of Americans, but the democrats do not cause hate crimes. Anyone, regardless of party affiliation, can commit a hate crime.

Hate Crimes
I refuse to admit any party affiliation simply because I do not have one. Hate crimes are not a democratic belief, and my opponent has failed to give me any evidence. Please show our readers an article that can prove your point.

Communism
"Communists believe that everyone will get the same amount of money of food."
http://www.howstuffworks.com...

Here is a link to an article about what communism really is about. My opponent's argument would benefit from a clear definition.

Immigration
How are 'they' getting power hungry and corrupt? How will they use 'their own trap'? Democrats and Republicans have been fighting over illegal immigration for a long time with no clear results. I believe that the Democrats are not trying to get the illegal immigrants citizenship because of votes. The worry is that if we kick every illegal immigrant out of America many lives will be ruined and the job market will be unstable.

Gun Control
I understand how easy it is for criminals to get guns. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't ban high ordinance weapons. A strict crackdown on the black market and harsher regulation on guns would do wonders on the crime element.

Banning Sodas
A ban of sodas is not communist in the slightest. It is an issue of health and government vs freedom.

In closing, I would like to ask my opponent a question of my own. First consider two statements that you have said:

2. Mention nothing of gay marriage. It is off topic and too minor for this debate.
I am not racist because I am voting for a black person. In fact, they are being racist by voting for a black person, because he is black.

It sounds like someone is trying to cover up some serious bias towards these two groups. I challenge the integrity of a man who say these things. To say that people voted for Obama because he is black proves he is a racist and a bigot.

I would also like to apologize to the readers if I've become too aggressive in my arguments, but it is ignorance like this that brings down this country. The only thing my opponent has cited is a song. Wow. Please write back soon so we can continue the next round.

To my opponent, I have linked up two sites to help you. The first is a dictionary to help him define his words more accurately. The second is a guide on how to use basic English. Enjoy : )

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.grammarly.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Flipbook

Pro

My opponent is a hypocrite! He says that I don't use the English language, while he is saying that I am saying, that I am accusing the Democrats of commiting hate crimes. Also, his very own "reliable source" said more on the subject of Communism. He skipped the part saying no private property.

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes are perfectly well a Democratic principle.
"Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the Federal Hate Crimes Law..."

//thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/senate-democrats-attach-hate-crimes-law-to-defense-bill/
This proves that Democrats support hate crimes.

Another point:
"A hate crime is a crime motivated by intolerance towards a certain group within society."
Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
http://www.osce.org...
This also proves that Democrats support hate crimes.

COMMUNISM
"Communism also requires that all means of production be controlled by the state"
http://www.howstuffworks.com...

Also shuts your own point down!!!
So now we know the truth! That Communism is bad!

Another Point from your own site!
"a theory advocating elimination of private property"
"a totalitarian form of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state owned means of production"
-http://www.merriam-webster.com...

We have the right to private property, we have the right to produce what we want, and trade it freely, without authority looking down on our actions.

Gun Control

Guns are essential to humanity.
Read This Article, its in my pure argument. If you don't try to counter it, we all know you are a bad debater.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Why do we need gun control in the first place, the save more lives then they kill.

Banning Sodas

Just because Bloomberg is a Independent, doesn't mean he is going to do an act against the freedoms of America. That shows he is not completely Independent. I am sure he has done Republican-based things before.
SaintMichael741

Con

First, I don't really understand why my opponent is getting all fired up like this. This is a debate, not a public temper tantrum.

Hate Crimes

It's clear that my opponent believes more in the Republicans. Many Republicans believe that there is no such thing as a hate crime. Listen, it's fine if my opponent believes in the Republican side. I'm with the Democrats here; hate crimes do exist. It's impossible to argue that if an ethnic group is targeted by a group they should get extra years to their sentences. My opponent is extremely prejudice against gays and blacks, which was shown earlier in a multiple of his comments. He thinks that the gay marriage topic is minor and that people voted for Obama just because they didn't want to be seen as racist. So my opponent proved that the Democrats believe that hate crimes exist? Awesome. Doesn't change the fact that hate crimes are a major problem throughout the world that threaten many groups of people. No one should ever EVER be targeted for their religion, creed, or color anywhere. That's not communist or unconstitutional.

Communism

No, communism is not bad inherently. It just doesn't work. Human greed counters communism and causes it to eventually fall like in the USSR. We do have the right to personal property. I do not think that gives us the right to have a mg42 mounted machine gun in our living room. We were given the right to bear arms in the constitution to defend ourselves. Handguns and simple shotguns are fine, but not a 50 caliber sniper rifle.

Gun Control

I covered some of this last paragraph. "If I don't cover this we all know you're a bad debater"? Have I really riled my opponent to the point he has to challenge me like a little child? I read your article. I think that your article brings up some good points about the right to bear arms, but again, we're not talking about a ban of guns. We're talking about restricting heavy duty arms. This country will never disband all of our arms, but there's a difference between having a handgun for self defense and an Ak47 with teflon tips.

Banning Soda

I didn't even mention Bloomberg last round.

To my opponent, I would recommend you calm down and talk to me like a normal human being instead of a child. I don't think you gain points on here for screaming at me.
Debate Round No. 4
Flipbook

Pro

????
?????????????
My opponent thinks that I want to legalize AK47's!
He thinks I'm a little kid!
He is talking like a Nationalist
My opponent thinks that he can get a free ticket out of racism, for calling me racist!

In my last argument, I listed a plain source, which he plainly, did not read. He thinks he can get away from that. Next time, if you were to actually read my sources and try to counter them, your slim chances of winning would grow a "little bit."

Hate crimes:

The wrong in hate crimes have already been explained. Then, I listed a source (which he did not counter, or even read) saying why it is a Democratic view. I would prefer if I actually were able to debate someone with some actual skill.
Why hate crimes is a Democratic View:
http://www.osce.org...
http://www.canadafreepress.com...
http://www.frc.org...--

Now I want you to actually read these sites and counter them.

Gun Control

Why gun control is bad:
http://www.veteranstoday.com...

http://www.studymode.com...

http://www.presstv.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

I wan't you to counter these sites also.

Racism:

Why not to vote for Obama:

http://www.policymic.com...

Now after reading that article, tell me straight at the face, why people would vote for Obama.
SaintMichael741

Con

First off, how can I tell my opponent straight in the face why people would vote for Obama when this is over the Internet. Second, I'm not reading your articles because you're not even arguing anymore; you're just citing websites without tying them into a legible argument. Third, I don't need to say why people should vote for Obama. This debate is to see if the democrats have communist views or don't care about the U.S. Constitution.

Also, never comment in another debate of mine again about this. I consider that an invasion of privacy and rude. You've been reported for harassment. I would never dare to take this debate into yours; respect my debates as well.

To conclude, the Democrats are not an evil political group. Neither are the Republicans. Just because a Democrat brings up a new law that clashes with the constitution does not mean they don't respect it. The Democrats are just trying to pass laws that they think will make a difference, same as the Republicans. I don't feel that the Democrats have communist views based on the information given by my opponent. His three points simply do not work together to make a strong argument.

To Flipbook, I apologize if this debate got a little heated. I do not think that you believe in legalizing ak47s. Frankly, I'm debating for the sake of debating, and if this is what you believe in I cannot change it. But I do not think you make a compelling enough argument. Good luck on your future debates.

I apologize
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Flipbook 2 years ago
Flipbook
I feel kinda stupid now, if you wish to challenge me I will try my best
Posted by Flipbook 2 years ago
Flipbook
I feel kinda stupid now, if you wish to challenge me I will try my best
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) PRO: 2. Mention nothing of gay marriage. It is off topic and too minor for this debate.

then:

Thesis:
3. Banning sodas (why the heck would you do that??!?)

So, gay marriage is "too minor", yet banning sodas is significant? Your credibility just went down the drain...:/

(CON goes into this too)

---

2) Hate crimes argument had nothing to do with Democrats. Neither did gun control. Nor sodas.

3) PRO: "We have the right to commit treason, in America, its called freedom of speech."

Sigh. Such ignorance. Treason is a major crime. Look up Aldrich Ames.

I stopped reading the debate here and just skimmed the rest...further reading would be a waste of time. PRO is just not making any sense. CON is tearing his arguments apart.

Arguments, Sources CON.

PRO, work on arguing what is in your resolution. In your entire round #2, I could not link any of your arguments to communism or the democratic party. The sodas argument was a joke.
Posted by Flipbook 4 years ago
Flipbook
All con really did was try to point out pro's faults.
Posted by Flipbook 4 years ago
Flipbook
"We can fight against corruption, we can stand for what is true, but we fall when we surrender, to the corporation view, and our faith can only offer, what we faithfully pursue, I promise you, I promise you!" -Threshold
Posted by Flipbook 4 years ago
Flipbook
"They shoot us with ideology, kill with policy, till pretention overrides objection, contemplation, a violation, till the memory of freedom is gone" -Threshold
Posted by Flipbook 4 years ago
Flipbook
"Honesty hides in the dust of the afterglow" -Threshold
Posted by SaintMichael741 4 years ago
SaintMichael741
I'm sorry Zaradi xD
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
BASTARD! I was literally about to take it after thinking about it for a while. You jerk </3
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Gay marriage is a minor topic.

Seems legit.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
FlipbookSaintMichael741Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro for the most part used post hoc, generalizations, and ad hominim against Saint Michael. He then cited websites and said that constituted an argument. Con made valid points, used proper grammar and cited legitimate sources. Conduct also goes to con as the name calling was confined for the most part to pro.
Vote Placed by Kwhite7298 4 years ago
Kwhite7298
FlipbookSaintMichael741Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Violation of theory
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
FlipbookSaintMichael741Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: terrible, terrible debate. I feel sorry for CON for accepting this one. see comments
Vote Placed by noprisu 4 years ago
noprisu
FlipbookSaintMichael741Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Im sorry to "votebomb", but this was a one-sided debate. Con brought up points and backed them with strong resources, pro put out paper-thin arguments with only a little evidence. Conduct comes with Pro listing many links as arguments instead of making them him/herself. Links to sources are made to cite specific information, not become an argument.
Vote Placed by drhead 4 years ago
drhead
FlipbookSaintMichael741Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I honestly cannot see how Pro possibly could be seen as having won this debate. Instead of arguing, he used (often tangential) inflammatory remarks, and never did anything to prove the resolution. While I did not consider this while voting, I also find it absurd that gay marriage was excluded from this debate as "too minor" of an issue. The entire argument presented by Pro was non-sequitur.
Vote Placed by medv4380 4 years ago
medv4380
FlipbookSaintMichael741Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Con because of Pros "bad debater" comment. Spelling Con because of Pros abuse of punctuation. Argument Con because Pro failed to connect any of his arguments to Communism, and Con pointed this out. The argument may have well been "I disagree therefore Communism". Sources go to Con because Con sited something to define Communism clearly. Pro needed to set a definitive definition of Communism, because it's clearly being used as a generic slur by Pro.
Vote Placed by Greematthew 4 years ago
Greematthew
FlipbookSaintMichael741Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro did not address 100% of what con refuted, he still made valid and excellent points.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
FlipbookSaintMichael741Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only talked about constitutional rights at one point (Banning soda's) and con very easily rebutted him. At no point did he draw parallels between Democratic ideology and Communism; he literally mentioned communism once "This, smacks everything of communism." This was more of a soap-box rant by pro than a debate.