The Instigator
JBlake
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Morty
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Real ID Act of 2005 should be repealed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
JBlake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,722 times Debate No: 5532
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

JBlake

Pro

Note: I would prefer to avoid an argument of semantics. It is my hope that my opponent will stick to the issue of the Real ID Act, or a national identification system.

Contention 1:
The Real ID Act creates a national id card for the United States.
Contention 2:
A national id system has the potential for misuse.
Contention 3:
Said system has the potential to be used to violate privacy. Both from the public and private sectors.
Contention 4:
The system would require a centrally linked database making it easier for identity theft.
Contention 5:
Since it does not allocate federal money to help with state compliance the cost would eventually fall on the taxpayer, either in the form of state taxation, or in extremely high costs for the ID card, or a combination of both.
Contention 6:
There are very few positive effects that would result. These are heavily outweighed by the negative listed above.

Conclusion:
The negative results of the Real ID Act (outlined above) far outweigh the good. Therefore, the Real ID Act should be repealed.
Morty

Con

I will, at the request of the instigator, refrain from using semantic arguments alone to make my case as Con.

First, let me remind the readers of the issue at hand: Should the Real ID Act be repealed? It is important to note that the Con side of this debate is not "The Real ID Act is good" but rather, "The Real ID Act should not be repealed." In my argument, I do not plan to make the case for the former statement, but rather limit my case to the latter and to refuting fallacious claims should they be made by my opponent.

I will now address my opponents contentions in the order that they appear:

1. I grant that the Real ID Act creates a national identification card.

2. I grant that a national ID system has a potential for misuse, while further noting that anything has a potential for misuse, thus rendering this point fairly unimportant.

3. I grant that the Real ID system could be used to violate privacy. However, this needn't be instantly considered a negative in its own right. For instance, it would behoove us to NOT respect the privacy of murderers while investigating a crime. For this contention to be of any use, a general right to privacy must be established on its own merits and a demonstration of how the Real ID violates the essential elements of that right would be necessary. I would further claim that privacy has the extra potential of violation from this act if and only if the people actually participate in the Real ID program. If they do not, then no additional potential of lost privacy is thrust upon them.

4. Here I believe my opponent is overstretching. Yes, it is true that a centrally linked database will be created. However, this does not imply that identity theft would be easier. Indeed, one might look to the analogy of using a bank to store money vis a vis everyone storing it in their houses and the implications for security. While a bank may centrally locate the money, it also allows for more heavy protections to be placed on the whole, as defense resources are also centrally located by the bank, rather than each homeowner needing to protect his own house with a limited amount of defense.

5. On this point, I think my opponent is confused regarding the nature of the federal government. Just as the states need to tax their citizens or impose fees to pay for programs, so does the federal government. In either case, whether federally funded or state funded, the citizens will be paying the bill. This comes from the fact that government has no wealth or resources of its own - it only has what it has taken from its citizens.

6. Again, I must disagree. I believe my opponent has overlooked the extent to which the Real ID plan is of utmost concern to people and the state governments, as well as the ferocity of the opposition to it. Many Christians have called it "The Mark of the Beast," civil libertarians are concerned with the dangers of rights violations, constitutionalists see this as a major unconstitutional expansion of federal power, fiscal conservatives note the large costs associated with this plan, state governments are concerned about their sovereignty and the funding for this program, and so on. These groups combined may be enough to present a serious threat to the successful implementation of such a policy.

It is possible that the tradition of Jefferson and Madison shown in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions will be sparked by this policy and nullification will be attempted by several states. Secessionist movements will likely gain support. Individuals may engage in mass non-cooperation. People may begin to leave the country. All these actions make it more and more difficult for the federal government to enforce their mandate.

But, even more importantly, this experience will send a message that speaks loudly - the people of the United States will not put up with such draconian legislation. This will prevent, or lessen support for, later acts of Congress. This should be regarded as a great potential benefit, something of this sort has not happened in a long time. The only true "checks and balances" on the federal government are the state governments and the people. If you were to simply repeal the law now, none of this could come to fruition and a great opportunity for striking a blow against big government will have been lost.

Conclusion: The Real ID Act, while not a good in itself by any means, could serve a terrific purpose in preventing or limiting future laws of its kind and its repeal can only serve to avoid this clash on an issue where there is a significant chance for those in favor of limited government to actually succeed.
Debate Round No. 1
JBlake

Pro

I will respond to the first six points in the same fashion as my opponent, then to his conclusion.

1-2. We are in agreement on and they need not be mentioned.

3. My opponent grants that Real ID can be used to violate privacy. He then goes on to claim that murderers do not deserve privacy while investigating their guilt. Due process suggests that the privacy of an alleged murderer should be respected. The alleged murderer (who is in this nation innocent until proven guilty) is under no obligation to comply with an investigation (retaining his privacy) until such a time that those investigators obtain a warrant. In order to obtain said warrant, investigators must provide ample evidence suggesting their invasion of his privacy would be 'warranted'.

Someone can arrive at the conclusion that our nation guarantees a right to privacy from from a number of ways. The Judicial Branch has upheld a right to privacy in a number of rulings, notably the 1965 'Griswald v. Connecticut' in which the majority struck down a state law banning contraceptives, citing a right to privacy not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but could be extracted out of the "penumbras" and "emanations" granting a right to privacy.
From another angle, it could be successfully argued that because the constitution does not give the government the ability to limit the right of its citizens' to privacy, that it would be illegal for them to do so. This is guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

My opponent then claims:
<"I would further claim that privacy has the extra potential of violation from this act if and only if the people actually participate in the Real ID program. If they do not, then no additional potential of lost privacy is thrust upon them.">

It may be correct that if they do not participate that their privacy would not be invaded. But this would unjustly limit those deciding not to participate in a number of things that would be restricted without one (driving, entering federal facilities, &ct.).

4. My opponent's bank analogy does not entirely apply to this scenario. It is considerably more simple to protect physical money with physical force (security gaurds, bank vaults, &ct.); with physical monitoring of the items protected and of personel that might attempt a breach; and with insurance guarantying those items from loss than it is to protect information stored on computer databases with significantly less security and oversight. The proposed database would also be linked to other databases allowing for additional breaches through personel, or someone hacking into the system from an outside network. Thus, my contention stands.

5. I assure my opponent that I am not confused regarding the nature of government. When I mention that the burden of the cost falls on the taxpayer, I am referencing costs in the form of new taxes. The federal government has far greater resources than the state and could more easily cover the cost with a shift in the budget. In this way no new tax burdens would be necessary. The states, especially the smaller states, are already pointing out that they cannot meet the expenditures that would be required of compliance.

6. My opponent seems to be saying that a positive effect of the Real ID is the opposition to it. This does not outweigh the negative effects of the program, since it is the program itself they seek to remove.

My opponent's conclusion is as follows:
<<"Conclusion: The Real ID Act, while not a good in itself by any means, could serve a terrific purpose in preventing or limiting future laws of its kind and its repeal can only serve to avoid this clash on an issue where there is a significant chance for those in favor of limited government to actually succeed.">>

Rebuttal:
Advocating a continuance of an unjust law for the sole purpose of manipulating the public dissention is the very definition of demagoguery.

Conclusion:
My opponent has only offered up the potential for demagoguery in putting down Real ID at a later date. He has agreed that Real ID should be repealed, but argues that it should await a future date so that public dissention can be manipulated for other goals that is not repeal of Real ID. This is just as dangerous of an outcome as the surveilance society that a national ID system would create.

Note: I would like to thank my opponent for debating this topic, and taking it into an equally interesting direction. I look forward to his response.
Morty

Con

For clarity's sake, I will continue with the initial numbering despite the first two points being agreed upon by both my opponent and I.

3. My opponent here is mistaken regarding what I have claimed. I only claimed that it would be beneficial for murderers to not have privacy, not that they oughtn't. The point here is not one of what should be and what shouldn't be, but just a consequentialist view of privacy in certain cases. I do note, however, that my opponent has granted that, in "warranted" cases, privacy can sometimes be legitimately violated. It seems that this leads necessarily to the idea that the "right" to privacy is merely a passing privilege, which can be given and taken away by positive law. I would argue that privacy exists only so far as it overlaps with property rights. For example, while I would be willing to say that it is illegitimate to break into someone's house to obtain evidence when guilt is still in significant doubt, if it could be seen through the walls with the use of x-ray binoculars or somesuch invention, it would seem to me that such is not a violation of rights, even if it is a violation of privacy. This somewhat overlaps with the question of whether a right to privacy exists at all.

In regards to my opponent's excellent citations of case law and constitutional interpretation in showing that a right to privacy is in existence in the United States, I must counter with the fact that just because such is the current policy does not imply that this policy is the correct one. My challenge to my opponent is to explain why there *ought* to be a right to privacy, not whether or not there *is* a right to privacy.

A final contention made by my opponent in this vein is that not participating would unjustly limit the choices of those who do not take the Real ID. However, this assumes that the law will be perfectly enforced to the letter. It seems to me that one could likely get away with driving without a state license in the current system for as long as they can avoid being pulled over, and could equally do so under the Real ID system. With regard to the other given example, entering federal buildings, it doesn't seem that this is necessarily the case either. I find it likely that this rule will not be strictly enforced in all cases, and while it may be that occassionally the non-cooperator will be unable to access federal buildings, he will be able to do so the majority of the time. Think of the amount of people who get away with getting on airplanes without identification, the number of people who get into bars without identification, and so on. Enforcement of such draconian rules is often arbitrary and random.

4. While my analogy may not be a perfect one, I must imagine that it is possible for the same principles to apply here. Surely with combined resources computer systems can be better protected against attack vis a vis separate computers all being responsible for their own protection? I cannot claim to be an expert on hacking and anti-hacking technology, but it simply seems reasonable to assume that the more resources one can put into protection, the better the protection will be.

5. I am glad that my opponent agrees that government is funded only by taking money from citizens, however, I think he may be far overestimating the fiscal responsibility of the federal government when he states that, "The federal government has far greater resources than the state and could more easily cover the cost with a shift in the budget." It has become increasingly rare, almost infinitely rare, that any funding is cut from any program. It is almost unfathomable that new taxes will not be used on a federal level to fund this program.

6. While it is the program they seek to remove, they do more in protesting it than simply attacking that one particular proposal. The controversy may stir up a more general healthy distrust of government and also make the government more concerned about the lines it crosses in the future. If the act was simply repealed, it would be a double blow to future protests. First, it would remove the effects I previously mentioned (and will note in greater detail later) from the picture that come with the protest of the law *once it is instituted.* Second, it would make people more trusting of government and less likely to make a fuss about new proposals, it would seem as if the government actually deeply considered all issues and would not follow through with a bad idea. The fantasy of "good government" would infect more minds that might otherwise be inclined to be distrustful of this dangerous institution.

Conclusions/Rebuttal: I will not argue whether or not that is actually the definition of demagoguery (I promised to avoid semantics), but only note that if this is true, then perhaps we should reconsider our reaction to demagogues qua advocates of that which will promote civil disobedience.

I would like to make the point that what I am advocating is not, as my opponent suggests, simply the later repeal of Real ID. If I were to propose a perfect solution, people would simply ignore the law altogether and en masse, rendering it an impotent legal fiction, much like ordinances that remain on the books despite being completely ignored in the modern day (such as a law in Michigan which states that a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission). I freely admit that my proposed alternative is for goals beyond the Real ID act, this is precisely the idea. The Real ID, in and of itself, is not as important as the overall march of big government. It is only because this was not successfully combated in the past that the Real ID act became law in the first place and without a significant part of the population pushing back, the Real ID act would simply be replaced with even more draconian legislation in a year or maybe a few years. Defeating this one act is not a solution to the underlying cause of the problem. To lean on an overused analogy, we must fight the disease, not the symptoms.

In closing, I too would like to thank my opponent for the lively debate thus far and look forward to the final round.
Debate Round No. 2
JBlake

Pro

I will quickly refute my opponents arguments and then finish with my closing argument.

3. <"I do note, however, that my opponent has granted that, in "warranted" cases, privacy can sometimes be legitimately violated. It seems that this leads necessarily to the idea that the "right" to privacy is merely a passing privilege, which can be given and taken away by positive law.">

This does not mean that the right does not exist, and it does not follow that it would be 'merely a passing privilege'. The constitution also offers a number of other rights that in some cases are taken away. A felon loses his right to bear arms; someone cannot libel or slander someone despite the right to free speech; and the right to assembly can be taken away if an assembly becomes violent. These do not mean that they are not rights, in fact they are defined specifically as rights. However, a person loses access to protection of these rights when they commit a crime (felony; libel; violent assembly; or in the example my opponent offered, murder). The right to privacy is only to be taken away when there is Reasonable Cause to suspect the person's (in this case murderer's) guilt.

My opponent states: <"I must counter with the fact that just because such is the current policy does not imply that this policy is the correct one. My challenge to my opponent is to explain why there *ought* to be a right to privacy, not whether or not there *is* a right to privacy."

My opponent at first contended "a general right to privacy must be established" (R1), I refuted this by showing that it has already been established in the Judicial Branch of our government. Then he shifted his argument to claim that I must not prove that there "*ought" to be a right to privacy" (R2). I will do so now.

Government, in theory and as it *ought* to be, exists for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of its citizens. The quick route to this is to point out once again that the U.S. government has already admitted that a right exists to privacy for its citizens, therefore the U.S. government exists to protect the right to privacy for its citizens (among other things, of course). To promote this on theoretic grounds one can point to a great number of philosophers that claim that government exists at the behest of its citizens, and for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of those citizens from being invaded by any external or internal forces. Therefore it would be against this basic principle of government to be the perpetrator in invading the rights of its own citizens.

4. My opponent points out that he is not an expert of hacking, but that the principle of having everything hidden away in one place would provide more security still stands. This is false. Government agencies have been hacked in the past and will be hacked in the future. The problem is that there can never be a physical barrier to absolutely, fully, and indefinately protect this information since it is stored on a computer that must necessarily have a network. There is a perpetual battle between hackers and protection software that is constantly tipping toward one or the other. In other words, a program is developed, then hackers find a way to break through. My opponent could potentially claim that in the distant future this may be corrected, but we are talking short term here, since there is a deadline of 2012 for compliance with the Real ID. This will not be corrected by that time (or anytime in the forseeable future).

5. It still remains that it is a fact that the federal government controls more resources and could more easily shift funding to cover the cost than could the states.

6. As mentioned before, a developing distrust in government has the potential for a demagogue to manipulate the system with potentially disastrous consequences. This is by no means a valid reason why the Real ID should not be repealed.

My opponent states:
"If I were to propose a perfect solution, people would simply ignore the law altogether and en masse, rendering it an impotent legal fiction, much like ordinances that remain on the books despite being completely ignored in the modern day (such as a law in Michigan which states that a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission)."

The Real ID is not on the same level of these types of laws. It is far less likely that someone will attempt to implement the law from Michigan mentioned by my opponent than it is for someone to attempt to slip a national ID on us. Leaving the law on the books without repeal will simply delay the battle for a future generation, much like the issue of slavery was delayed throughout early American history.

Closing Arguments:

MY opponent has not successfully refuted any of my arguments. I have proven that a right to privacy is not already recognized by the current U.S. government, but that itought to be as such theoretically. Furthermore, my opponent agrees with me that Real ID is a bad law with the potential to lead to oppression. The only argument he has to offer is that Real ID may possibly be good one day in that it might possibly one day lead the people to a healthy distrust and dissention toward the government. This is clearly not a valid reason why a law should be retained since allowing it to stay will merely leave the question unanswered for future generations. Ultimately, under my opponent's proposition, the result would either be repeal at some later date (which still falls under my resolution), or it would ultimately be adopted (which my opponent admits would be a negative result). My contentions have not been successfully rebutted, so my conclusion must prevail - The Real ID Act of 2005 should be repealed.
Morty

Con

As my opponent did, I shall make my final refutations of his points and then give my closing.
Again, a reminder on numeration, the relevant, controversial points begin at #3, so the first two have been excluded from discussion, but retain their places in the numeration.

3. First, a couple quick corrections on the Constitutional analogy that my opponent is drawing. At no point in the Constitution is there any mention of exceptions with regard to the right to bear arms, nor the right to free speech. Furthermore, the right to assemble is never asserted in the Constitution, only the right to peacefully assemble, and at no point in the Constitution is that right qualified or been stated as conditional. It is merely my opponent's interpretation of the Constitution to exclude certain activities that makes this analogy make any sense at all, an interpretation which, I might note, gains no support from the text of the Constitution.

But, of course, all this is fairly irrelevant to the challenge I gave to my opponent. As I stated previously, I did not ask him to prove that the right to privacy was *protected* in the United States, but rather to establish its legitimacy in the first place. He is merely twisting my words when he claims that I have changed my challenge from an is to an ought, for I said the following: "a general right to privacy must be established on its own merits." Every relevant definition of the word "establish" ("To cause to be recognized and accepted"; "To prove the validity or truth of" http://www.bartleby.com...) would support the fact that I had asked for proof that a general right to privacy ought to exist, not for proof that a general right to privacy does exist. My opponent either misunderstood the contextual meaning of the word, or is being purposefully dishonest in an attempt to paint my contention as a shifting one.

In my opponent's attempt to address my contention, he falls into circular reasoning. He says because governments are supposed to protect rights, and government has said that privacy is a right it will protect, that governments should protect privacy. Anything could function in that manner. Consider the following: governments are supposed to protect rights, and government has said that rape is a right, so then governments should protect rape. Simply asserting that because the government has decreed something worthy of protection, governments must protect it is the height of absurdity and, actually, does little for my opponent's case. I will point out that the supporters of the Real ID Act could quickly give some story about how Real ID is protecting the citizenry's rights against terrorism, illegal immigration, and so on. My opponent needs a much better case for why the right to privacy ought exist at all if he is to use that as a reason why we ought repeal the Real ID Act.

4. I grant that government protection of its computer systems is not perfect, but surely my opponent would grant that neither is the case with anyone's protection? Surely we have learned through the recent episode with Sarah Palin's email account being hacked that it is a very simple affair to hack most private systems, and compared to the combined resources of the government network protection services, most private systems are far from up to snuff. Was it not the case that Palin was told repeatedly to get a government-provided email account to prevent such things from occurring? Identity theft is a rising problem in America and this is the result of the hacking of private systems, not government ones. It seems that my opponent has not even come close to making the case that the government network protection will be less effective than that of the vast majority of private computers.

5. But what relevance is this point? Yes, it has more resources. But the states have a burden proportionally smaller (roughly) to their resources. Thus, they could just as easily shift around resources to meet these needs without new taxes. I agree it is unlikely they will do so, but I contend that with the federal government it is even more unlikely that this will be the method of funding. Unlike the states, the federal government can raise taxes invisibly through inflation, making it, politically, much easier to fund the increase via higher taxes. Since no government agency likes to see its budget cut, it would seem that the most likely case, no matter what level of government the Real ID is funded at, taxes will be raised to cover the expenses. But it is by far the most likely at the federal level where incumbent politicians are almost never defeated and tax increases can be done without a single vote on the issue by the Federal Reserve.

6. Does the likelihood of a demagogue rising up to exploit the situation really seem high enough to warrant concern? The type of people who are most opposed to the Real ID are the anti-authoritarians, the limited government types who are already concerned with and oppose the rise of dangerous demagogues, and, indeed, are often against powerful leaders in general. It seems absolutely ridiculous to worry that such types will be struck with a sudden urge to follow a self-centered, power-hungry leader.

My opponent then asserts that "The Real ID is not on the same level of these types of laws," and by this, he means the outdated laws which remain on the books, but are not enforced. He says it is less likely that such laws will be enforced than the Real ID. But this is completely circular. In attempting to prove that the Real ID is different from those types of laws, he merely asserts that the Real ID is different from those types of laws. My very point was that we ought to start treating the Real ID Act like those laws and ignore it, that this is the correct solution to the problem, rather than repealing it.
My opponent, then makes a completely false analogy, by bringing up the issue of slavery in American history. He states that by not repealing the act now, we are simply delaying it for a future generation to deal with, as happened with slavery. But this is not the case at all. As I have contended from the beginning, the greatest part of the Real ID Act's continued existence as a law is that so many people, and so many types of groups, oppose it that we have an opportunity to do something about it now, by ignoring it, while also sending a message to the government that its silly laws hold no traction in society and to drum up additional distrust of government so that this is not a one-time victory, but rather the beginning of a great many victories for advocates of liberty and limited government. This is very different from America's experience with slavery, namely in that many people actually oppose the Real ID. For most of America's history, up to and including during the Civil War, very few abolitionists existed in the United States. Slavery was accepted and supported by the vast, vast majority of Americans.

Conclusion:
My opponent continues to assert that his position has not been touched by my arguments, but quite the opposite is the case. He has not been able to offer a persuasive or full answer to any of my points, points which undermine the very basis of his case. He has not offered a theoretical ground for supporting the right to privacy, he has only given appeals to current policy and circular reasoning. He has not shown how government networks are more vulnerable to attack than private networks. He has not provided any reasoning for his irrational belief that the federal government is more likely to be fiscally responsible than the states when implementing the Real ID. And, most damning of all, he has not provided any critique of my proposal that the Real ID Act is best challenged by the people, using the time-tested method of civil disobedience, other than it has the potential to lead to "demagoguery," a charge which I have shown to be illusory, and irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Morty 8 years ago
Morty
Oh, I agree it wouldn't likely turn into a massive movement over night, I was only pointing out that the mere fact that a greater number of people would be civilly disobedient in response to Real ID that it would be a boon for efforts and influence more people to follow that path. There's no question that the majority would remain docile, but it's things like this that give activists a chance to chip away at the margin and get a few more people involved.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
I'm not saying that civil disobedience has never worked or doesn't work. As said, I am a proponent. It would be great if this tactic were used more often. However, like I also said, people (the majority) don't care enough for this to work on many projects. They are too busy chasing spoonfed consumeristic dreams. just my opinion.
Posted by Morty 8 years ago
Morty
I don't know how unlikely it is, brittwaller. I think civil disobedience often begets more civil disobedience, once people see that it can be done and how. Take for example the Free State Project - it originally had only a very small number of people willing to engage in civil disobedience, but now as the actions of Lauren Canario, Dave Ridley, Russell Kanning, and so on have been published, they have influenced and inspired others. It's like a positive feedback loop.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
A great debate by two skilled writers. All points were voted by me as tied, except that I agreed with PRO before the debate and gave the points for "Most Convincing Arguments" to PRO. Both of you had great style and great arguments. CON's position was novel and well-played. However, he did not convince me that civil disobedience was a better way to combat the overall tree of governmental "people organization," of which the REAL ID Act is a leaf. I am a proponent of civil disobedience, however in this case I think it is better to get rid of a thing before it in itself begins to blossom any further. The points CON made about "Secessionist movements will likely gain support..." and so on about the possibilities this could unlock were idealistic, and frankly, rather unlikely. Most people are too distracted by shiny objects to even know about the REAL ID Act in the first place.

Either way, it was very close and both of you did very well. A pleasure to read.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I'd also like to ask for come constructive criticism from voters for either side. Thanks.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Yeah, I was hoping to argue against someone who was for Real ID, but this was just as good. I was able to learn of a new perspective, no matter how wrong I might find it to be. I wish you good luck in this, and all of your future debates as well, Morty.
Posted by Morty 8 years ago
Morty
I didn't get a chance (due to the length limitations) to say that it has been an excellent debate and express my sincerest thanks to my opponent for having it with me, even though I took it in a direction I gather he did not intend. Good luck in the voting portion, JBlake.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
As in, I agree.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
This...?
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
This.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
JBlakeMortyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Riddick 8 years ago
Riddick
JBlakeMortyTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
JBlakeMortyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30