The Instigator
Labrat228
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
pickpocket094
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

The PS3 is a better system than the X-Box 360.

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...
pickpocket094
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,506 times Debate No: 5594
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)

 

Labrat228

Pro

Hello to all potential voters and my potential opponent. I find that I have a great advantage compared to some in this debate, due to the fact that I have both a PS3 and an X-Box 360. I will use this round to give debate topics and to set up an easy to read form. In this debate I will point out the five main things, these five being:

1) Reliability
2) Graphics
3) Games
4) Misc. Features (Messenger Programs, Browser, Video, Pic, Music... etc)
5) Price

I would like for my opponents rebuttal to be in order of the presented topics above.
EX:
1) The PS3 has a reliability rating of ___. It is beleaved that the PS3 may be the most reliable console ever created for the gaming purpose.
2) etc...
3) etc...
4) etc...

I wish good luck to my opponent and I would like to remind readers to vote fair and balanced, based upon the best debater.
pickpocket094

Con

1) The Xbox 360 has a current reliability rating of 9/10. It is widely believed that the current Xbox 360's are some of the most reliable systems on the market today. Aside from the "Red Rings of Death" that Microsoft went through with the system failures, the overall experience has not been greatly affected.

This can not be said for the PS3 which recently released the 2.40 upgrade that caused hundreds of Playstation 3's to fail. The owners of those gaming systems were never refunded for their crashed systems.

2) It is believed by many gaming experts that the Xbox 360 has superior graphics than the Playstation 3. They also agree that in the next 6 months the PlayStation will have all the bugs worked out and the two systems will either have equal graphics, or the PS3 would have a slight advantage.

3) When the Xbox 360 first came out it offered many great games and currently maintains a library of 133 exclusive games. Not only has Xbox proved it can create a large amount of exclusive games, it can also create hits. This is the case in the Halo, Project Gotham, and Viva Pi´┐Żata gaming series.

On the other hand, the PS3 has struggled to come out with exclusive games and currently has a selection of 65 released exclusives. Most of those games happen to be third party, low selling games. The PlayStation 3 does however, have some good exclusive series such as Resistance, but in the end they pale in comparison to the Halo's of Xbox.

4) I believe that this part of the debate should not be valid due to the fact that the Xbox 360 has a completely new interface coming out in the upcoming months. This will dramatically change the layout of the current Xbox and thus a accurate comparison of the two systems features and home pages can not be made.

5) Though most of the consumers of video games believe that the entire market is over priced, the Xbox has proved to be the "better buy." Unlike the PlayStation's recent $40 price drop on the 40 GB model, the Xbox dropped the price on all of its models $50-60 dollars. With the current price provided with the PlayStation 3 one would expect many more, less bugged features. All in all, the PlayStation three has yet to deliver on the price of the system and the price of the games. The Xbox 360 is the older yet still dominant of the two consoles, a trend that could continue until the next "era" of systems.
Debate Round No. 1
Labrat228

Pro

Thank you pickpocket094 for following provided format. I will now offer a rebuttal to my opponent's views.

1) While the reliably rating may be 9/10, the fialure rate is still 10%. 10% is very much better than 30% as it was a couple months ago, but it is still no comparison to "around .02 percent" according to Sony regarding the PS3. My opponent stated this to belittle the "Red Ring Of Death" he said, "Aside from the "Red Rings of Death" that Microsoft went through with the system failures, the overall experience has not been greatly affected." I would like to emphasis that based on Microsoft's console numbers of 17.7 million consoles sold (Microsoft's official sold into retail numbers through December 2007), that would mean that there are 2,902,800 defective consoles sold since the Xbox 360 released. That is 2,902,800 people who are in deep trouble. I would also like to point out that the problem has not been solved. Reports are coming in for the "updated" version of the Xbox 360 that say the "Red Ring of Death" is still a problem. Compare 2,902,800 XBox failures to "hundreds of Playstation 3's" and see the difference.

2) It is not possible for the Xbox to have better graphics due to the hardware in the Xbox compared to the hardware in the PS3. Lets examine the hardware in detail.
The XBox Has 3 Cores that run 3.2Ghz
The PS3 has 6 Cells that run 3.2Ghz
More processing speed equals better graphics.
The 360 features a 512mb RAM - 700MHz
all of this RAM can be accessed by the CPU and GPU

The PS3 has two RAM sets, One for CPU and one for GPU, they both add up to 512mb, the GPU's alone RAM is clocked at 1.3GHz... THAT'S NEARLY TWICE AS FAST!

3) I agree that the XBox has great games and that the PS3 will have a hard time catching the Xbox. However, the PS3 uses a blueray disk that has 50Gb, While the Xbox DVDs have a Capacity of 9Gb. More free space obviously means more potential for gaming. Xbox live cost $50.00 for a year. Playstation network cost nothing. Free online play for every playstation.

4) My opponent feels this section shouldn't be debated, I will agree to this.

5) The PS3's price is well worth it, considering it cost:
$200 for a bluray player (that you will soon have to buy)
$140 to fix the "Red Ring of Death" for your XBox.
$100 Wireless Network Adapter for WiFi
That's a staggering $440 that you will have to pay extra on top of your Xbox to meet PS3 standards.
pickpocket094

Con

1) First and foremost, I would like to point out that the 10%, formerly 30%; failure rate of the Xbox 360 is a consensus of various retailers, not Microsoft itself. My opponent defended the PlayStation 3 by bringing up the "around .02 percent" failure rate. What he has failed to provide is the proper information about that quote.

The biggest problem with that "statistic" is that it came from Sony Entertainment Europe founder, Chris Deering. The question one must ask is, how reliable can information be coming from a man who founded the company he is defending using a word as vague as "around."

The second problem is one that cannot be easily overlooked. The quote came out in April of 2007, long before the bugged 2.40 update. The .02% does not include one of the largest "console crashing" issues of the PS3.

2) The truth is, when the two consoles are put side by side on a common American television (not a high definition T.V.) the Xbox does come through with a cleaner, crisper picture do to its higher processing speeds. It is true, however, that on a High Definition television the PlayStation 3's picture does come through with a higher level of clarity. What is NOT true, as my opponent may suggest, is that this makes the system itself better for the average American. In the assumption that most of the video game market comes from the middle class of American society, affordability is a key role. Without getting into to great of detail of the final point of price, the average American will not own a more expensive HD TV, thus the larger part of gamers will not experience PlayStation 3 at "where it could be" , but instead will see it where it is. I feel that the graphics need to be set to the average TV, not a HD TV that the larger part of the market cannot or does not have.

3) The point that we are debating is which system has better games, the online and memory storage are different topics for different sections. Unfortunately, due to lack of foresight of my opponent, such sections do not exist and I feel that I must briefly defend the Xbox 360 here. My opponent stated that the Xbox Live price was 50 dollars as opposed to the PS3's choice of free online play. Before the higher cost immediately influences your decision I would like to state what that price is paying for. When one purchases the Xbox Live 12 Month Membership for $50, they also receive a free headset in the package.

In regards to the actual online experience, Xbox 360 delivers a much greater opponent generator due to a higher level of multiplayer standards. This allows equally ranked players, players with better connections, and generally similar players to play using a unique matchmaking system.

4) I would like to take this time to thank my opponent for allowing this section to be excluded from this debate.

5) Each "additional price" that my opponent has stated is a misrepresentation of the truth.

First, "$200 for a bluray player (That you will soon have to buy)." This statement is ridiculous on a multitude of levels. The largest part of the bluray market comes from PS3 owners. I agree with the idea that "if you got it, use it." It is true that the PlayStation 3 does come with the built in bluray, that fact is undeniable. The fact that bluray is doing well is simply because a PS3 owner will pay a little bit more just to put their "fancy" bluray/PS3 combo to use. Implying that it is the new age of DVD's is an example of trying to find an excuse to add money/negatives to the Xbox 360 system.

Second, "$140 to fix the "Red Ring of Death" for your Xbox." A statement that should quickly be dismissed from the first point where my opponent admitted the chance of a "failure" is 10%. This is not the chance of the "Red Rings of Death" but the chance of failure in general. Trying to put the entire Xbox system into a 10% likely hood is a remarkable attempt on my opponent's behalf.

Third, "$100 Wireless Network Adaptor for Wifi." This assumes that a player wants to play wirelessly or even has that option. When a direct link can provide a much stronger signal and thus better game play, why does one NEED a Wireless Adapter.

In the end, that is the fact that my opponent seemed to neglect. The price of a system is how much it cost to play, not how much it cost to get the system "to the best it can be." The truth is that the core experience of the 90% non failure rate Xbox 360's is not affected by any additional price. When all the unnecessary and extra items are taken out of both systems, the Xbox 360 will give you the same level if not a higher level of enjoyment, for a much lower price.
Debate Round No. 2
Labrat228

Pro

1) My opponent seeks an unfair ruling, he says "how reliable can information be coming from a man who founded the company", before that he said "I would like to point out that the 10%, formerly 30%; failure rate of the Xbox 360 is a consensus of various retailers, not Microsoft itself." So in one instance he feels that a statement from the company is the correct way to go, but in the other he feels that its the corrupt way to go. I again refute his V2.4 argument with the fact that their are over 2,902,800 bugged Xbox's floating around, when my opponent says their are only hundreds of PS3's with a failure. Millions compared to hundreds, seems simple to me.

2) How does the Xbox come through cleaner? "do to its higher processing speeds." This statement is false, the PS3 has double the processing speed as shown in my last argument. "I feel that the graphics need to be set to the average TV, not a HD TV" Which explains why you are an Xbox fan, lower graphics.

3) Half of a games point is the multilayer capabilities, my opponent disregarded this fact and even insulted me. To receive higher multiplayer capability you must be online. In your previous argument you said that the console needs to be built for the "average American". The average American would rather pay nothing for online capability than $50. My opponent then said that Xbox live is unique, this is also false, having both an Xbox and a PS3 (neither of which have failed), I know what Live looks like and what PSN looks like. They look and feel the same, the only difference is $50. PSN also allows "ranked matches", I'm very confused about why you think Live is unique.

5) I will defend my additional prices.
You will need a BR player just as you used to need a DVD player. Bluray has shown is capability and all the major retailers are joining in on this pursuit of better quality. "Toshiba Corporation announced they are planning to stop production of equipment compatible with the HD DVD format, allowing the competing Blu-ray by Sony to take over the market. Toshiba was hit hard when Wal-mart stores decided Friday to abandon the HD DVD format by June joining both Net-flix and Best Buy." "February 18, 2008 -- The only indie multi-format high definition disc pressing plant, Blue Ray Technologies, will drop its HD-DVD lines without waiting for the widely-reported and anticipated announcement of Toshiba's retreat from HD-DVD." Its happening rather we like it or not, you will have to buy a BR player.

2,902,800+ defective consoles, its more than likely that you must be prepared to fix this problem. Due to the fact that the "cure" turned out to not be a "cure" they are still selling defects.

I never said that it was needed, read what I say my friend, I said "to meet PS3 standards."
pickpocket094

Con

1) My opponent wrote a statement that cancels itself within two statements. He took my quote "I would like to point out that the 10%, formerly 30%; failure rate of the Xbox 360 is a consensus of various retailers, not Microsoft itself." and misinterpreted it. He followed by saying, "So in one instance he feels that a statement from the company is the correct way to go, but in the other he feels that it's the corrupt way to go." This statement is far from the truth as anyone who can read can easily see. In Xbox's defense I used a percentage from the consensus of VARIOUS retailers, NOT a statistic from Microsoft. I then stated that his statistic coming from the PlayStation representative has a great chance of being biased. In no way did I switch between two stand points, the whole time I was against using a biased statistic.

My opponent has continuously tried to refute my debate that the Version 2.4 update had the same effect on the PS3 that the Red Rings of Death had on the Xbox. It is true that the Red Rings of Death caused a much greater amount of system failures, but it is also true that the Xbox has twice as many systems sold. I am not trying to defend the fact that it was a huge oversight on Microsoft's behalf, but I am trying to prove that a system that has sold in greater numbers for a longer amount of time is bound to have issues after a while. The Version 2.4 Update that PlayStation released to its users was an even greater oversight. How is it that a patch designed to help the system caused so many issues? The truth is that the PS3 had an oversight that could have been avoided before sent out as opposed to the Xbox's error that is in the general hardrive.

2) In his response to my statement, "I feel that the graphics need to be set to the average TV, not a HD TV", my opponent came off in a disrespectful tone to not only me, but all middle class citizens that don't own an HD TV. I was only stating the facts that most of the nation does not have the HD TV that gives the PS3 "such greater graphics." Unfortunately I cannot help myself from stepping down to my opponents tactics. His response to my justified statement shows why he is a PlayStation fan, he is willing to pay more for both the system and an HD TV.

3) I am sorry for any insults I gave you in my recent defense, for it was not my intention. The number of players that buy a game for general game play is still the other half of the market, assuming your statistics are accurate. The "half" that plays the multiplayer aspect of the games, gets split again between core multiplayer and online multiplayer. I still believe that the "average American" would be willing to pay for the online for the better experience, more so due to the difference of price.

The online experience is greater on the Xbox for many reasons, and seeing as how my opponent can't seem to understand them, I will explain them.

A) The online experience comes with multiple levels of membership. Each level comes with a new, unique, advanced, experience.

B) In the current state of Xbox Live compared to PSN, Xbox has a more unique feature for communication capabilities. The online interface makes it much easier to communicate with friends no matter where they are at the time. The PlayStation network provides a slow, laggy experience, only topped by the difficulty of communication.

5) It is true that the HD TV DVD's may be disappearing, but it is not true that a bluray will be necessary. The normal DVD's will be around until the next form of video devices. Saying that the bluray is the only system that will be around in the future is suggesting a monopoly, something that cannot and will not happen.

Yes, there are 10% of failed consoles, but that is on a very large scale. It is true that they have not found the "cure" for the problem but, again, saying that the entire market needs to be afraid of a 10% error is ridiculous.

The price of wireless would need to be struck from the record because a direct connection is cheaper and provides better quality. Due to the fact that PS3 is wireless and thus will have the wireless problems, the Xbox is not lessened by not having wireless included. The "Red Rings of Death" addition should also be taken out due to the fact that only 10% of the Xbox market is "below" ps3 standards. The only thing that I could possibly say should be included, only due to your stubbornness, is the bluray player. When added to the Xbox system, the prices are equal due to recent price drops.
Debate Round No. 3
Labrat228

Pro

1) I apologize for any misinterpreted information. My opponent stated this "It is true that the Red Rings of Death caused a much greater amount of system failures, but it is also true that the Xbox has twice as many systems sold." Do you realize that the RRD (Red Ring of Death) hasn't been cured? A defective console is being sold to many Americans as this debate continues, I wander which side they will stand on when their Xbox fails? 2,902,800+ people have a defective Xbox, when according to my opponent, the PS3's 2.4 update only affected hundreds. Again, compare millions to hundreds and see which situation is more of a crisis. I would also like to point out that the 2.4 update has been fixed, unlike the RRD which is still occurring.

2) Excuse me, I'm middle class, was I insulting myself? My opponent said that the reason for higher graphics for the Xbox on an "average American" TV is because of its processing speeds. If that is the case then the PS3 should have double the graphics on an average TV. Again the XBox Has 3 Cores that run 3.2Ghz ,the PS3 has 6 Cells that run 3.2Ghz. Double the processing speed.

3) My opponent's argument that Xbox Live is better is simply outrageous. He suggest that communication is harder, how can this be true when all you have to do is turn on a Bluetooth headset and talk? Unlike the Xbox in which you must buy special gear which also adds to the extra multiplayer expense. His statement that Xbox Live comes with multiple levels of membership is also outrageous due simply to the fact that so does the PSN. And again "laggy experience", do you have some type of proof as to why this is? I can tell you from experience that it isn't true.

5) I will provide a simple fact that no one is able to dispute. In the great world of technology we consistently strive to get better. This was proven when the VHS was replaced by the DVD. Bluray is the next DVD, it is the update. Bluray is more efficient and cost less to produce. Bluray is also supported by all of the major retailers in the world, unlike HD DVD which was supposed to replace the DVD to meet our needs. It is the true that this change wont happen fast, but it will happen, and you will be forced into the Bluray era.

My opponent is trying to downsize that 10% as of 2007 meant 2,902,800 RRD victims. Of course we are in 2008 and their still isn't a cure. We can easily say that the number is far passed 2,902,800. My opponent says that the market being afraid of 3 million+ defective consoles is "ridiculous". I hope he doesn't say that to somebody who suffered this common issue, he may face assault.

The price of Wireless definatly doesnt need to be "struck from the record". My opponent says that a direct connection is cheaper and provides better quality.
A. Its obviously not cheaper due to the amount of time and gas it takes for you to go and buy the routing cord.
B. According to you we are talking about the "average American", who also according to you have a good TV, quality can be improved through a cord?
C. Time and money will be saved when you use the Wireless routing that is already in the PS3.
D. My opponent didn't provide any details that I didn't totally blow away in my argument.
E. My opponent wasn't able to refute that their are around 3 million+ defective consoles already out. And new ones with the same problem that are still being sold.
F. I have given many points as to which my opponent didn't and cant refute.
G. Vote Pro!
pickpocket094

Con

I would like to take the time to thank my opponent for creating this debate with few attacks on each other and a flexible debate structure this debate has been fair and informative.

1) Of course I realize that the hard drive is issued, i have not stated that it is cured. I've only said that the amount of failures in comparison to the amount of systems is only 10%. Xbox expanded its one year warranty to three years to cover the Red Rings of Death failures. Though it is not a complete solution to the problem, it covers the time period that the Xbox's typically failed. In my final point, i'd like to point out the fact that my opponent did not try to defend the oversight of releasing glitched software, as opposed to glitched hardware. The PlayStation update should not have been released without further testing and the fact that such an error slipped through is simply wrong.

2) As i said in multiple rounds, the playstation's graphic quality is only greater when you put it onto an HD TV. My defense is that most americans don't own the new, more expensive televisions. This means that the largest part of the gaming market will not get to experience the PS3 at its "best". On the level that most americans will see the playstation 3 is one equal to the graphic level of the Xbox 360. So, in the end, the largest part of the market will not be able to tell the difference between the systems.

3) Xbox Live communtication is much easier for people in and out of games. The playstation communication is one where you must jump through many hoops to talk to fellow players. My opponent stated that the Xbox requires you to buy "extra gear" that adds to the expense of Xbox online. The truth is, the online membership comes with a free headset with every purchase of a 12 month membership. So the statement that a headset would add to the "online experience" is rediculous. The real truth is that the playstation three does not come with a headset in any way. To purchase the blue tooth that my oppenent is talking about would cost $49.99. The full online experience for PS3 would not exactly be free at that point.

5) The defonition of a monopoly is "A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service." This is what my opponent is suggesting blue ray will become. Sadly for his point, specific departments are set up to prevent the formation of a monopoly in any kind. Again, the DVD will be around until the next, truly different, form of videos.

My opponent said he hopes i don't talk about the 10% failure rate as being low or else i would face assault. When i look at the fact that 9 out of 10 Xbox users "suffer" from this "problem" i feel i could take the chance. Again, my opponent is trying to say that all of the Xbox market "suffers" from this issue, this is simply not true and i ask the voters to see reason.

The price needs to be struck from the record and i shall prove so by dismissing my oppenents "cases."
A. A cord is included in the origional packaging, free of charge.
B. The quality of the internet service is improved by a direct connection. This is an undeniable fact. This and the fact that the "average" american does not own wireless disproves your point.
C. My opponent failed to say that he is assuming that the users house has a wireless hookup.
D. Because that makes sense seeing as how i went 4 rounds with you?
E. of course i can not deny the fact that there are 3 million defective units. Assuming that anyone could is rediculous. The only thing that i am trying to refute is my opponents oversight when he says that the entire 21 million console market is in the 3 million failed consoles.
G. Vote Con!

Thank you all for reading and voting on this debate. Again, i'd like to thank my opponent for a fair debate.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by EgadsNo 6 years ago
EgadsNo
the XDR ram in the PS3 operates at 3.2GHz- and the PS3 has far more transistors- that is more important then cores. Plus it has 256- 256 floating point bit registers, a modern pc data server has 128-128 non floating point registers
Posted by pickpocket094 8 years ago
pickpocket094
Cool, because i said anything along those lines.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Your right, so the lower processing speeds of the 360 is a very good thing for a 16inch magna vox from 1993.
Posted by pickpocket094 9 years ago
pickpocket094
A lot of people don't. They spent 500$ on a gaming system, why would they want to pay another 500$ for a "cheap television."
Posted by my.matryoshka 9 years ago
my.matryoshka
Who the heck wouldn't have an HDTV when they spent $500 on a video game?! Besides, flat screens are going down in price every day. The 32" 720p is, like, $500-$600. The 1080p 42" is $800-$1,000.
Posted by joshandr30 9 years ago
joshandr30
Hmmmmm,,,,,,
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
I'm a winner takes all kinda guy. Grammer is meaningles to me as a voter. Sorry if you feel jipped.
Posted by pickpocket094 9 years ago
pickpocket094
Just an observation sadolite, you said that our arguments canceled each other out, more or less, yet you voted in every category saying that the pro argument won. It's just interesting that you say we were neutral on mostly everything, yet you vote all 7 towards pro. (Mostly offended that he got the better grammar vote =P)
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Tough debate to call. Both sides did well at canceling each other out. It came down to one thing out of everything that I based my vote on. The PS3 has more powerful graphics. Cons argument that it didn't matter because most people won't experience them because most people cannot afford the HDTV's that emphasize this advantage does not cancel out this advantage.
Posted by knick-knack 9 years ago
knick-knack
The PS3 would be more for your money if you used it for all that it is capable of compared to the 360.

But I'm still all for the Xbox. I don't like Sony ever since I bought a PS2 and it stopped working after just a year. It was a defective one, and I missed the recall.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by blibble34 9 years ago
blibble34
Labrat228pickpocket094Tied
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 pita03 9 years ago
pita03
Labrat228pickpocket094Tied
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 Littleweasle 9 years ago
Littleweasle
Labrat228pickpocket094Tied
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 sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Labrat228pickpocket094Tied
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 pickpocket094 9 years ago
pickpocket094
Labrat228pickpocket094Tied
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 KRFournier 9 years ago
KRFournier
Labrat228pickpocket094Tied
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:32 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
Labrat228pickpocket094Tied
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 Riddick 9 years ago
Riddick
Labrat228pickpocket094Tied
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