The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
repete21
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points

The Following Character is Immoral and Undeserving of Respect.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 12 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,349 times Debate No: 6370
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (53)
Votes (12)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the following character is immoral and does not deserve any modicum of respect.

This character is not necessarily any specific character from history, and any similarities he may have to Hitler, Stalin, Cortes, God, or Alexander is mere happenstance and any attempt by my opponent to introduce arguments concerning these historical characters is merely spurious and nonsensical.

*********************

This character is guilty of the following actions:

1. He kills babies and small children.

Several times this character has destroyed entire cities, from the youngest babe to the oldest hag. He has also caused tragedy to befall certain regions, causing the death of untold multitudes of innocent babies and children. Furthermore, once, he encouraged two bears to eat some children making fun of a friend of this character.

2. He wishes others to stone those who ridicule him.

Many times, there have been people who speak out against this character. When asked how he feels about this, he invariably replies that these people should be stoned to death.

3. He considers homosexuals to be deserving of death.

He has said on at least two occasions that if two men are together that they have forfeited their lives. He tells others to kill these homosexuals, yet seems too lazy to do it himself.

4. He condones slavery.

He has told groups of people that it is OK to own slaves as long as they are foreigners.

5. He encourages war and genocide.

Many times, this character tells a group of people to seize control of a foreign land, and to kill every living thing there, except perhaps for the women, which he sometimes tells them it's OK to rape or take them as your wife.

6. He practices unjust retribution.

This character has a laundry list of ridiculous propositions he wishes were followed, and an equally ridiculous list of bizarre punishments to be meted out if people do not abide by his wishes. These include things like retribution via biological warfare, and even antagonizing people so that they resort to cannibalism.

7. He occasionally lies.

Sometimes this character lies and deceives people that trusted in him, yet expects them to still trust him after he has lied to them.

8. He destroys lives on a whim.

Once, this character killed an entire person's family and infected the head of the family with terrible diseases. Then he destroyed everything this character owned... and all just to win a bet.

9. He tempts and leads people to commit wrongs.

For example, once, this character told another man to take his son up a mountain and hill him. When the man started to obey him, this character let the man get all the way to almost stabbing his son before saying "HA! I'm just kidding - untie him and let him go."

10. He likes social unrest and the destruction of families.

Once, when asked why he was in a certain place, he replied that he is not there to be peaceful, but that he comes with a sword and will make members of a family kill each other. He also threatens to kill those who do not drop everything and do his bidding.

*************************

As once can see, this character is heinously immoral. I'm not sure why anyone would even consider this character to me moral, let alone deserving of praise. If this character played Fable II, he would run around with horns on his head and terrible will scars. Small children would scream and run away, women would abhor his visage, and even strong men would quake in their boots at the thought of his blood-filled sword.

This character is immoral and undeserving of respect.

AFFIRMED.
repete21

Con

For the following debates I will use the definition of respect "to refrain from interfering with" from
http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]

Too assume that said character does not deserve any respect is the epitome of hypocrisy. To say that because one has done bad things to x degree bad things should be done to said person on and infinitely larger degree is to say that thieves should be killed or murderers tortured. I will show through several philosophies why said character does in fact deserve at a bare minimum "some modicum of respect" but first it is necessary to clarify that if one is not given any respect that means everything which could be defined as the antithesis of respect. If absolutely no respect is given that means anything which could be considered disrespectful would be done to said person. These actions would be far worse than the acts of the person himself.

By not giving "any modicum of respect" everyone would have to not even in the slightest refrain from interfering with the goings on of said persons life. If people do not refrain at all then it is acceptable to assume that all forms of interference would be used against said person. No living thing, regardless of what it has done deserves some of the things which would be done if the suggested punishment were used.

I will now show that even with a philosophy which many people consider rash being used to define appropriate punishment for said character he still deserves some amount of respect. John Locke's philosophy regarding the death penalty states that when one infringes on someone else's right to life, liberty, or to own property they them self give up said right. Throughout history many people have disagreed with this saying that an eye for an eye policy is too rash and unjustifiable. This alone proves that with even the most harsh of accepted punishment policies disapproves of the suggested punishment, which could include unimaginably worse impacts than those of the crimes committed by said man. According to Locke's policy the man deserves the equivalent of what he himself delved out. I will leave it to the judges rationality to understand that these things pale in comparison to other things which could be done.

A more commonly accepted policy than the aforementioned is that rather than punishment society should be protected from the individual or the individual should be rehabilitated. I think we can all agree that the person is obviously beyond saving, and protection of society from said person would be as simple as killing him, an act which would not allow the horrible things suggested by my opponent.

I have clearly proven that the person does deserve some modicum of respect.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

I assume my opponent has not read his own source, as nowhere on the page he linked to does it actually say "to refrain from interfering with." In fact, his definition contains four parts:

1. a relation or reference to a particular thing or situation
2. an act of giving particular attention
3. high or special regard; the quality or state of being esteemed; expressions of respect or deference
4. particular, detail;

Furthermore, the page my opponent INTENDED to link to is the definition of respect as a verb. It is clear from the resolution that "respect" in this context cannot be a verb. "Respect" is the direct object of "is undeserving", meaning it must be a nominal of some form (http://en.wikipedia.org...). A verb is not an acceptable form of a direct object. Also, if the resolution was about the verb form of respect, it would state "The Following Character is Immoral and Should Not Be Respected." Obviously a very large difference between the grammar of the noun form and the grammar of the verb form. In the first, "respect" is an object, and in the second, "respect," or rather "be respected" is a verb.

But nice try.

I introduce my own definition, which is clearly the appropriate use:

Respect
- noun
"Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability" (Dictionary.com).

****************************************

Some responses:

>> "I will show through several philosophies why said character does in fact deserve at a bare minimum "some modicum of respect""

To satisfy this burden, my opponent must show something that merits respect in the 10 actions I have put forth. However, there is no net respect to be found in any of these actions.

>> "If absolutely no respect is given that means anything which could be considered disrespectful would be done to said person. These actions would be far worse than the acts of the person himself."

False - lack of respect does not mean DISrespect. Lack of respect is neutral ground. Also, there is no punishment outlined for this character in my argument, so your argument that any action taken against him would be worse than his actions (if such a thing is conceivable) is a complete red herring.

>> "By not giving "any modicum of respect" everyone would have to not even in the slightest refrain from interfering with the goings on of said persons life."

Here you use respect as a noun... which is it? This doesn't even make sense if we consider the definition of "respect" YOU put forward.

>> "If people do not refrain at all then it is acceptable to assume that all forms of interference would be used against said person."

WHAT? This makes NO sense. A complete red herring AND an appeal to ignorance.

>>"According to Locke's policy the man deserves the equivalent of what he himself delved out."

Again - a red herring, but in any event, it's completely moot because we're discussing the merits of this character, not what sort of punishment he deserves.

>> "I think we can all agree that the person is obviously beyond saving, and protection of society from said person would be as simple as killing him, an act which would not allow the horrible things suggested by my opponent. I have clearly proven that the person does deserve some modicum of respect."

Your "modicum" of respect is killing him because he is "obviously beyond saving." I submit that this counts as conceding the debate.

***********************************

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent has done nothing to actually address the merits of this character, and has tried to weasel his way out of the argument with a poor semantic argument that has now been rectified. In fact, my opponent has almost entirely conceded the debate by acknowledging that this character is deserving of punishment...

Much luck in the next round.

AFFIRMED.
repete21

Con

I will first respond to my opponents new arguments then carry over my old arguments.

In my opponents own definition it says "...a sense of worth or excellence of a person, [or] a personal quality or ability...". The question then becomes, what has this person done, or what quality does this person have that makes him useful or important? The following points will show you why he is important and or useful (meaning that he is "worth" by definition as in the definition of respect).

The most obvious reason that he is important that he is a human, and as a human deserves to be treated justly, at the very least. I think we can all agree that humans deserve justice. In this mans case justice may not be preferable to the status quo, but the fact that he is given the opportunity to be treated justly alone means something. We must ask, why treat him justly? For that matter, why treat anything justly? The reason is that justice, by definition, is required for ethical and morally acceptable actions within a society.

The fact that we would treat the character justly proves that he is of some importance. I think that all of you as judges understand in your hearts that justice is important, but yet surely you don't always treat things justly do you? Some of you may be just in your treatment of other people, but what about everything else? In comparison to all the inanimate objects, and nonhuman living things which we treat unjustly humans are certainly given special treatment. Why are they given special treatment? The reason is that they are important. Maybe not by definition, but in lay terms they certainly are.

Although I'm sure with six degrees of pointless definitions and technicalities you can prove that this is grammatically untrue I think that you all know in your hearts that there is a reason you treat people so much better than you treat everyone else, and that reason is that they are important to you.

While I'm on the issue of importance I will provide some other examples of the importance of the character.

Importance is defined as
1. of much or great significance or consequence: an important event in world history.
2. mattering much (usually fol. by to): details important to a fair decision.
3. entitled to more than ordinary consideration or notice: an important exception.
4. prominent or large: He played an important part in national politics.
5. of considerable influence or authority , as a person or position: an important scientist.
6. having social position or distinction, as a person or family: important guests.
7. pompous; pretentious: When speaking, he assumes an important attitude that offends his audience. (dictionary.com)

I will now show why the character justifies under several of the offered definitions, although I have to win only one to prove that he deserves respect.

In regard to definition 2 "mattering much"

The character "matters much" because he is a person, albeit a bad person he is a person none the less. No one doesn't matter. If you don't believe me consider this; the Catholic church and the Jewish disapprove of suicide because they believe that everyone is important and everyone is on earth for a reason. They believe that we all matter, so much so that we don't even have the right to take our own life. If we didn't matter we could all leave this earth at any time on a whim with no effect. We can never really know how important someone's existence is, so we need to treat everyone as if they matter, because they do. For all we know the character may have stolen the throne from an even worse younger brother who would have done much worse things if he were leader, or been the great grandfather of the prophet Muhammad or Jesus or Gandhi. Sure the person has done bad things and may deserve death but he's at the very least important enough that he had to do some pretty bad stuff before he was deserving of death. The reason he wasn't deserving of death until proven so is that he matters.

In regard to definition 4 "prominent or large"

The fact that the character had the capacity to do what he did proves that he is prominent. Surely no insignificant person could influence others to go to war, enslave foreigners, kill family members, and allow him to destroy entire cities. His prominence is irrefutable.

In regard to definition 5 "of considerable influence or authority"

Cross apply arguments for definition 4, also look specifically at #9 of the original post. This proves that he has considerable influence.

*****THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS PROVE THAT THE CHARACHTER IS IMPORTANT, WHICH BY DEFINITION PROVES HE IS "WORTH" WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE DEFINITION OF RESPECT, SHOWING THAT BECAUSE OF HIS IMPORTANCE AND WORTH HE DESERVES RESPECT.*****

Now to cross apply my previous arguments in order of his responses:

">> "I will show through several philosophies why said character does in fact deserve at a bare minimum "some modicum of respect""

To satisfy this burden, my opponent must show something that merits respect in the 10 actions I have put forth. However, there is no net respect to be found in any of these actions."

His being a human and the fact that he has not given up certain rights, according to Locke's policy show merits of respect.

">> "If absolutely no respect is given that means anything which could be considered disrespectful would be done to said person. These actions would be far worse than the acts of the person himself."

False - lack of respect does not mean DISrespect. Lack of respect is neutral ground. Also, there is no punishment outlined for this character in my argument, so your argument that any action taken against him would be worse than his actions (if such a thing is conceivable) is a complete red herring."

Lack of restraining from doing something is doing it, or would allow doing it, which means that not respecting by the verb form of respect would allow doing worse things.

">> "By not giving "any modicum of respect" everyone would have to not even in the slightest refrain from interfering with the goings on of said persons life."

Here you use respect as a noun... which is it? This doesn't even make sense if we consider the definition of "respect" YOU put forward."

Just because I used your definition of respect doesn't mean I accepted it as the only definition, there is more than one definition of respect.

">> "I think we can all agree that the person is obviously beyond saving, and protection of society from said person would be as simple as killing him, an act which would not allow the horrible things suggested by my opponent. I have clearly proven that the person does deserve some modicum of respect."

Your "modicum" of respect is killing him because he is "obviously beyond saving." I submit that this counts as conceding the debate"

My point is that there are far worse things than just killing him and not respecting him would allow those things. I do not concede I simply believe that he deserves nothing worse than justice.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

First, consider the definition of "respect" again - ""Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability" - My opponent begins his argument with an egregious error:

>> "In my opponents own definition it says "...a sense of worth or excellence of a person, [or] a personal quality or ability...". The question then becomes, what has this person done, or what quality does this person have that makes him useful or important?"

For some reason, my opponent equates worth and excellence with usefulness and importance. This is of course more semantic nonsense, the same weaseling argument my opponent tried in the first round. Like there, it shall have no bearing on the second round, for even a third grader can tell that worth and excellence are NOT equivalent to usefulness and importance.

My opponent's argument follows as such:

1. If this character is important, he has worth.
2. If this character has worth, he deserves respect.
3. This character is important.
------------------------------------------------------
:. This character deserves respect.

However, this is clearly flawed in that things or people that are important do not necessarily have positive worth. The Holocaust was an important event, but nobody considers it to have worth that one would ESTEEM it for. It makes no sense to garner respect from a negative worth or negative esteem (if such a concept is even coherent)... Thus, the rest of his argument on importance is a red herring, unless he can prove that the importance of this character generates any sort of esteem or positive worth.

Furthermore, my opponent's entire argument about justice is also a complete red herring, a waste of characters. Justice has no bearing on this debate, as we are not talking about punishing this character for his wrongs, only judging the merit of these actions.

****************************************

Responses:

>> "THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS PROVE THAT THE CHARACHTER IS IMPORTANT, WHICH BY DEFINITION PROVES HE IS "WORTH""

The American Heritage dictionary defines worth as "The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable." I see nothing desirable, useful, or valuable in this character's brand of importance. In fact, this character's sadistic lack of morality seems to render him worth-LESS.

>> "His being a human and the fact that he has not given up certain rights, according to Locke's policy show merits of respect."

Re-read Locke - he holds that when one violates the social contract, one is removed from it. He no longer HAS rights to give up. Furthermore, basic rights (which he no longer has anyway) merit justice, not respect. One respects (VERB) rights VIA justice. We're talking about respect (NOUN), which is not connected to basic rights.

>> "Lack of restraining from doing something is doing it, or would allow doing it, which means that not respecting by the verb form of respect would allow doing worse things."

This doesn't even make sense (in context of lack of respect not being DIS-respect, but neutral). Again, we're not talking about the verb respect - we're talking about the noun. You can't deserve a verb. That's like saying "Billy deserves run."

>> "My point is that there are far worse things than just killing him and not respecting him would allow those things. I do not concede I simply believe that he deserves nothing worse than justice."

Again, the justness of any proposed punishment has no bearing at all on whether or not he deserves respect. Red herring.

>> "...His prominence is irrefutable."

Satan's prominence is irrefutable - does Satan deserve respect then? He does by your argument....

>> "This proves that he has considerable influence."

Satan has considerable influence... He deserves respect by your argument...

>> "he is a person, albeit a bad person he is a person none the less. No one doesn't matter. If you don't believe me consider this; the Catholic church and the Jewish disapprove of suicide because they believe that everyone is important and everyone is on earth for a reason."

"A bad person..." I submit this is another form of concession. Furthermore, the beliefs of religious groups are immaterial to this debate.

>> "Why are they given special treatment? The reason is that they are important. Maybe not by definition, but in lay terms they certainly are."

My opponent seems to want to use "definitions" and "lay terms" where they suit him best instead of sticking to what something MEANS.

*********************************

Since my opponent seems so keen on definitions, let us examine the original definition of respect yet again, and also the pertinent definitions of its components...

Respect - "Esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability." (Dictionary.com).

Esteem - "Favorable regard." (American Heritage).
Quality - "Character with respect to fineness, or grade of excellence." (Dictionary.com).
Ability - "Power or capacity to do or act." (Dictionary.com).
Worth - "The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable." (American Heritage).

As one can see, the definition of respect clearly implies some sort of positive quality that merits esteem as a function of its desirability, usefulness, or value. Do any of these character's actions merit esteem or have desirability, usefulness, or value? Of course not - it is laughable to think so.

****************************************

Conclusion:

Throughout this debate, my opponent has spouted nothing but semantic nonsense, basically amounting to "If we adopt a bizarre or incorrect understanding of respect, this character merits some." Obviously, this is not a very good argument. The one vaguely sensical argument my opponent makes is that if you understand respect to mean "A sense for the worth of a person," then this person deserves respect if he has worth. However, when considering the worth of this character, the only conclusion is that his actions detract from his net worth, earning him DIS-respect, and not respect.

I ask the readers again if any of the following actions merit esteem, desirability, usefulness, or value:

1. He kills babies and small children.
2. He wishes others to stone those who ridicule him.
3. He considers homosexuals to be deserving of death.
4. He condones slavery.
5. He encourages war and genocide.
6. He practices unjust retribution.
7. He occasionally lies.
8. He destroys lives on a whim.
9. He tempts and leads people to commit wrongs.
10. He likes social unrest and the destruction of families.

Obviously, none of these actions merit respect in any sense of the term. They are heinously immoral actions, and would seem to merit DIS-respect. This character is immoral and undeserving of respect.

AFFIRMED.
repete21

Con

I'll keep this short and more or less limit myself to responding to my opponents arguments here:

My opponents only refutations of my arguments in the 2nd round are that 1- important doesn't define worth, and 2- importance doesn't mean you deserve respect.

My responses are as follows.

1- Throughout the round you'll notice that my opponent favored "dictionary.com" as his source for definitions, so when going into the third round I used the definition of worth from dictionary.com, that being "usefulness or importance, as to the world, to a person, or for a purpose". It is almost comical that my opponent simply switches sources when it suites him because, no doubt, he checked dictionary.com first and realised that using that definition I was right. Rather than actually reply to my arguments he decided to shift the focus so he didn't have to respond, as he has done this whole round.

2- My opponent made several remarks about being important in a bad way not earning you respect but you'll note that I never manipulated this loophole in the definitions, although I could have. I understand that some important things don't make something deserving of respect, but I only quoted good things when saying the character was important. This argument was simply a generic response which my opponent used to avoid having to reply to my individual responses but unfortunately it was not applicable.

In conclusion my opponent has done nothing but shift away from the actual debate and pick on technicalities rather than debate the actual morality of the issue. He has dodged many arguments because of syntax errors and has totally ignored others. In the last round he totally ignored some of my sub points about the correlation of importance and respect. I believe at this point it is obvious that from a moral and ethical point of view he does deserve respect, in some way shape or form, which opposes my opponents suggestion that he deserves no respect at all.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
This is why I'm all for non-anonymous voting. At least whenever people give all seven points to someone over and over again, it would be there for all the world to see.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "I've been scanning through some of your debates, and it appears that Chrisitans seem to be voting against you whereas Agnostics and Atheist seem to be in favor of you. Hmph. I'm starting to wonder whether or not I'm one of the only people who votes based on the actual quality of the debate rather than allow my own votes to interfere. :("

I think you are - lol.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I've been scanning through some of your debates, and it appears that Chrisitans seem to be voting against you whereas Agnostics and Atheist seem to be in favor of you. Hmph. I'm starting to wonder whether or not I'm one of the only people who votes based on the actual quality of the debate rather than allow my own votes to interfere. :(
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "I believe the key problem here lies in that you committed the classic mistake of not quite making it clear to your audience of what you're actually thinking in terms of what you intend to debate."

I need to start putting an asterisk in my debate resolutions so people like you don't twist them :p

Anyway - I thought it was perfectly clear what the debate was about...
Posted by firesoul139 8 years ago
firesoul139
this is a long debate my i got sleepy but over all the debate was pretty good
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"
That is akin to stating that someone should be paid if they have done $1 worth of work, regardless of the fact that they owe $1000. Their net value is $-999, regardless of the fact that they may indeed deserve the $1.

This character deserves a net DIS-respect."

Ah, but that in that case, the character would STILL be paid, would he not? He still gained, thus, thus the resolution would still be fulfilled. How that pay effects his revenue in general has no bearing on the debate.

I believe the key problem here lies in that you committed the classic mistake of not quite making it clear to your audience of what you're actually thinking in terms of what you intend to debate. I believe you should have said something along the lines of "On BALANCE, the following character is immoral and undeserving of respect. In that case, this insures that you acknowledge that it's quite possible to respect this character in a certain way, but that your opponent cannot argue this as a means of winning.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "However, if I argue that this character has parts of his personality and has committed actions which warrants respect (he/she not only knows not to lie ALL of the time, but insist that lies be made only occasionally), I can conclude that he/she is deserving of respect. See that? I too can remove the word "some" and still uphold the opposite position quite nicely. :D"

That is akin to stating that someone should be paid if they have done $1 worth of work, regardless of the fact that they owe $1000. Their net value is $-999, regardless of the fact that they may indeed deserve the $1.

This character deserves a net DIS-respect.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
EDIT:

However, if I argue that this character has parts of his personality and has committed actions which warrants respect (he/she not only knows not to lie ALL of the time, but insist that lies be made only occasionally), I can conclude that he/she is deserving of respect. See that? I too can remove the word "some" and still uphold the opposite position quite nicely. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"True, but then Con clarified blatantly incorrectly, and I rectified his misclarification.

That he did. The way he clarified was illogical. That said, his approach and my approach are quite different.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Logical Master with the one vote for Conduct -

""Like there, it shall have no bearing on the second round, for even a third grader can tell that worth and excellence are NOT equivalent to usefulness and importance" ... I shall be giving CON conduct because of this line of yours."
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
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 theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
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 Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
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 Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
JustCallMeTarzanrepete21Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10