The Instigator
weather
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
HeedMyFeed
Con (against)
Winning
64 Points

The US should invade Mexico

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 15 votes the winner is...
HeedMyFeed
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,518 times Debate No: 7455
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (15)

 

weather

Pro

Invading Mexico would eliminate illegal immigration, we can use the national guard to get rid of the drug lords, and eliminate large amount of drugs around the world. Not a bad idea if you ask me.
HeedMyFeed

Con

I would first like to post my rebuttals against my opponent's arguments then move on to my sole point.

"Invading Mexico would eliminate illegal immigration,..."
This argument is absolutely absurd. First, because not all of the illegal immigration into the United States comes from Mexico. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2006, Mexico made up only 57% of the illegal immigration to the United States [1]. Therefore, it is absurd to assume that invading Mexico would eliminated illegal immigration. Second, not even invading Mexico would eliminated illegal immigration from there. In fact, the only way to eliminate illegal immigration from Mexico is if we had control of every single Mexican citizen, which is practically impossible.

"we can use the national guard to get rid of the drug lords"
This is another absolutely absurd argument. First, because the National Guard is not responsible for invading country and cannot leave United States soil [2]. The national guard is responsible for matters on United States soil such as suppressing rebellion, dealing with natural disasters and repelling invasion. However, in this case the use of the national guard is inappropriate because we are invading foreign soil. Second, it is impossible to get rid of all of the Mexican drug lords. This is practically impossible and in some cases it will be impossible to determine whether a person is a drug lord.

"and eliminate large amount of drugs around the world."
In fact, Mexico is not even responsible for the large amount of drugs around the world. For example, the largest Heroin producer is Afghanistan [3] and California makes about 14 billion dollars off of the trade of marijuana in a year [4]. The second fallacy present in this argument is that by invading Mexico we eliminate all the illegal drugs present in Mexico. This is not true because the trade of drugs can still continue under United States presence for example with the Heroin trade in Afghanistan.

"Not a bad idea if you ask me."
On the contrary, it is a very bad idea.

My Case:

Contention One: Invading Mexico is impractical
The United States should not invade Mexico because the decision is impractical. The first reason it is impractical is because the United States is already engaged in two other wars. There are already claims that our presence in two wars is more than enough. However, our presence in three wars would be impractical and absurd. Especially when the third war is completely unnecessary. It is completely unnecessary because it will cost more money, and will cost more soldiers lives. The United States is currently in an extremely large deficit and another war would add to this. This would again have a much worse effect on the American citizen. As well, we have already lost enough soldier's lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a war with Mexico would add to this casualty total.

Sources:
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] - http://www.24-7pressrelease.com...
[4] - http://www.drugscience.org...

So for these reasons I urge you to cast a negative ballot. I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
weather

Pro

If we invade and takeover Mexico, the Mexicans would become Americans thus making it legal for for them to move from state to state. We could take over make better schools that teach English and all is good. If Mexico was successfully invaded, it would become American soil, thus allowing the national guard to smash the rebels drug lords, that have recently been blowing up stuff right and left. Mexico does produce allot of drugs, the elimination of that source would drive up prices a noticeable amount. "and California makes about 14 billion dollars off the drug trade of marijuana in a year" Trade is when someone brings something from somewhere to somewhere. Quick geography lesson, California is next Mexico so where do you think the drugs that are being traded come form?? The Drug cartels has a network from Mexico (where the drugs were made) up into America. As you should be hearing, heedmyfeed, Phoenix Arizona, about 16 miles from you, was named the US kidnap capital of the world. Haven't you heard that some of national guard was deployed into Iraq and Afghanistan? this map shows the Mexican drug lords there is a place of distribution in all 50 states, even Alaska. http://www.diggersrealm.com... The national guard could take care of this, it is not hard to find some one, just look at the people running down the streets with shotguns, they are easy to find just look at this news report.
Common' we just threw $800,000,000,000 at the economy, it wouldn't come to that much to take over Mexico.
� The Drug cartels doesn't have ieds and rpgs to plow up humvees, with the tactical body armor, the only worry is being shot in the face. the death totals are no where near the Vietnam, civil war and all the other wars.

sources are at the following locations:
http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.judicialwatch.org...
HeedMyFeed

Con

I would briefly like to go over my opponents arguments then go back to my case.

"If we invade and takeover Mexico, the Mexicans would become Americans thus making it legal for for them to move from state to state."
Two things are wrong with this, first the fact that these citizens would not be United States citizens. This is like saying all the citizens in Iraq are citizens of the United States. They are not, in fact they are still citizens of Iraq, just like the Mexicans would still be citizens of Mexico. As well, even if this was true, it would still be hiding the problem and would not solve it.

"Mexico was successfully invaded, it would become American soil, thus allowing the national guard to smash the rebels drug lords, that have recently been blowing up stuff right and left."
Even if we did allow national guard troops to smash the rebel drug lords, it would be impossible to identify who are the drug lords. My opponent tries to say it is the people who are running down the street with shotguns, however this is just a stereotype, because it is absurd to assume that all the drug lords are like that. Plus, even in Iraq and Afghanistan it is impossible to identify who are the enemy combatants because they blend into the population. The same thing would happen here.

"Mexico does produce allot of drugs."
My opponent tries to say that Mexico produces a lot of drugs hence why there is marijuana in California. First, that statistic is talking about the growth of marijuana as well, which can and does take place in California. As well, my Afghanistan example shows that there are drugs located all around the world and that invading Mexico will not do much to stop the proliferation of drugs. Therefore, it may eliminate a short supply of the drugs but will do nothing to curb the entire worldwide problem. However, my opponent fails to guarantee to me that invading Mexico will eliminate their drug problem. I mean we have invaded Afghanistan yet done nothing to curb the Heroin problem there.

My Case:
"Common' we just threw $800,000,000,000 at the economy, it wouldn't come to that much to take over Mexico.
The Drug cartels doesn't have ieds and rpgs to plow up humvees, with the tactical body armor, the only worry is being shot in the face. the death totals are no where near the Vietnam, civil war and all the other wars."
In fact, even if it did not have the death totals of the other wars, it would still cost United States soldiers some life loss. With our military soldiers stretched out all over the world, and declining enrollment this would have a significant cost. As well, our occupation of this place would cost a lot of money, and would further hurt out declining economy. My opponent failed to refute the point that this would hurt the everyday United States citizens.

Thus I urge a Con ballot and await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
weather

Pro

before I post my argument, dude shouldn't you be in school?

I believe that my opponent has failed to understand the meaning to invade, for the Encarta English dictionary the 1st definition of invade is "transitive and intransitive verb to enter a country by force with or as an army, especially in order to conquer it" the Germans didn't invade France to chill out and say "hey French guys, were just gonna chill here" no they went to make it Germany. The Mexicans wouldn't be Mexicans because there would be no Mexico, jus about 20 more states for the US.

Yes we could take out the guys running down the street with shotguns, I recently went to Mexico on vacation and there were 2 pickups with mounted 50s on them, full of the swat teams, and standing on the deck of the ship I heard fire fights. And to eliminate the drug lords, find the marijuana fields, pack them with C4 or something like that and blow it into next week.

Yes we are spread across the globe, but remember, we still got tons of national guard, and since they helped in Afghanistan, why not aid in the Mexican invasion?

I was not intending for this to be immediate, the economy will recover, and maybe in a year or two woe can all email our people and see what can be done. and I believe we can throw at least $2,000,000 more at this.

We have a right to bear arms, and last I checked we still had the right to have autos and semi-autos. Call me a absurd stereotyping person but I don't think you would know about about guns, you being a democrat.

You say absurd allot.
HeedMyFeed

Con

I will start out by going down the flow of my opponents arguments.

"dude shouldn't you be in school?"
I am currently on a two week break ending on Tuesday. This is due to me being part of "year round schooling."

"I believe that my opponent has failed to understand the meaning to invade, for the Encarta English dictionary the 1st definition of invade is "transitive and intransitive verb to enter a country by force with or as an army, especially in order to conquer it" the Germans didn't invade France to chill out and say "hey French guys, were just gonna chill here" no they went to make it Germany. The Mexicans wouldn't be Mexicans because there would be no Mexico, jus about 20 more states for the US."
No, apparently you have failed to understand common United States foreign policy and history. I will use example for you that will clarify what will happen. For example, when the United States invaded Iraq, Iraq did not disappear off the map and become another state of the United States. In fact, there still are Iraqis in Iraq, therefore there would still me Mexicans in Mexico and the possibility of illegal immigration.

"Yes we could take out the guys running down the street with shotguns, I recently went to Mexico on vacation and there were 2 pickups with mounted 50s on them, full of the swat teams, and standing on the deck of the ship I heard fire fights. And to eliminate the drug lords, find the marijuana fields, pack them with C4 or something like that and blow it into next week."
Sure this could help eliminate the guys running down the street with shotguns, but not all of the criminals located in Mexico. Not all criminals run down the street with shotguns. As well, his plan to eliminate the drug lords does not work. This is because a) it is impossible to find all the marijuana fields, and b) the drug lords themselves do not have to visit the drug fields, just their employees. For example, in Afghanistan the United States has taken control of many of the poppy seed fields used to grow Heroin. However, Afghanistan still does lead the world in Heroin production. Also, the idea of blowing the fields up, just wastes money and destroys the agricultural productivity of that land.

"Yes we are spread across the globe, but remember, we still got tons of national guard, and since they helped in Afghanistan, why not aid in the Mexican invasion?"
This in fact proves my point. The United States military is lacking so many soldiers and enrollement that Obama had to order the National Guard into Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of the National guard are still located there as well. Therefore, a lot of our National Guard are stationed oversees. In addition, the United States military enrollment has seen a sharp decline. Therefore, the United States military does not have the capability to invade and sustain troop presence in Mexico. The United States will sustain troop presence because they have done in previous wars such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.

"I was not intending for this to be immediate, the economy will recover, and maybe in a year or two woe can all email our people and see what can be done. and I believe we can throw at least $2,000,000 more at this."
Even if we waited until the economy stabilized, it is still a wrong move. I have shown it is unnecessary by refuting all the points you have brought up. As well, it is detrimental because it would result in troop loss and unnecessary spending. Finally by saying it would cost only $2,000,000 is absolutely outrageous (see I didn't say absurd).

"We have a right to bear arms, and last I checked we still had the right to have autos and semi-autos. Call me a absurd stereotyping person but I don't think you would know about about guns, you being a democrat."
I fail to see the impact this has on the debate.

Thus I urge a negative ballot. I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 3
weather

Pro

Ichie carumba, we are in Iraq to dismantle terror, not to gain land. We are stopping the gassing of innocent Iraqis, and all the other bad stuff. This would be for the gain of land, thus making it America. I repeat this would be different from the war in Iraq, this would be for the gain of land, have I made myself clear?Do they not teach logic in schools? if we eliminate the dudes with shotguns (employees) cant get to the fields and if you argue that the guys with guns are different than the guys in the field, than guys in the field would be pulled to the street to settle "business". And for your theory of blowing up fields destroys agricultural property. Look into the past, the Maya practised "slash-and-burn agriculture" where they burned their fields before planting on them, this not only fertilized the field, but kept away the bugs.
Mr Bush put the national guard in Afghanistan than took them back, Obama is sending more jar heads and army guys over. And remember each state has a national guard, use Alaska's, its to dang cold up there anyway, nothing happens.
Only a small amount from each state was used in the invasion.

Yes we would would suffer minor troop lose but they signed up to get shot at. UNNECESSARY SPENDING?!?!?!? Need I bring up the $800,000,000,000 thrown to the "economy" we know not were it went.

sorry, incomplete thought, we can protect ourselves here in America with the autos and semi autos, not the cars, the guns.
HeedMyFeed

Con

"Ichie carumba, we are in Iraq to dismantle terror, not to gain land. We are stopping the gassing of innocent Iraqis, and all the other bad stuff. This would be for the gain of land, thus making it America. I repeat this would be different from the war in Iraq, this would be for the gain of land, have I made myself clear?"
Yes, but there still would have to maintain order in Mexico even if we tried to colonize Mexico. As well, we rarely try to colonize areas that are dangerous, because the cost to maintain order in these areas are very high as seen through Iraq.

"we eliminate the dudes with shotguns (employees) cant get to the fields and if you argue that the guys with guns are different than the guys in the field, than guys in the field would be pulled to the street to settle "business". "
You fail to understand that not all people who deal drugs and grow them carry around shotguns. In fact, this is a stupid assumption because it is simply not true. This still means we would not be able to identify all the drugs and Mexico and be able to curb the problem there. Finally, as I stated earlier, we would not be able to find all the drug fields.

"And for your theory of blowing up fields destroys agricultural property. Look into the past, the Maya practised "slash-and-burn agriculture" where they burned their fields before planting on them, this not only fertilized the field, but kept away the bugs."
Again, this just wastes money for no reason whatsoever. As well, there is a clear difference between slash and burn agriculture and blowing up agricultural fields. There would still be damage to the property and the land, not to mention the collateral damage that could possibly occur.

"Mr Bush put the national guard in Afghanistan than took them back, Obama is sending more jar heads and army guys over. And remember each state has a national guard, use Alaska's, its to dang cold up there anyway, nothing happens.
Only a small amount from each state was used in the invasion."
Yes, but you fail to notice that the state has to agree to the deployment of their own national guard. Therefore, a state would not agree to the deployment of their whole national guard. As well, the role of national guards are to respond to problems within mainland United States borders such as national disasters. Finally, it would cost a lot of money even if we decided to deploy this amount of National Guard troops.

"Yes we would would suffer minor troop lose but they signed up to get shot at. UNNECESSARY SPENDING?!?!?!? Need I bring up the $800,000,000,000 thrown to the "economy" we know not were it went."
The troops signed up to protect their country, not loose their lives unnecessarily. Even though $800,000,000,000 may be unnecessary, this would add fuel to the fire.

You have failed to outline any benefits from invading Mexico, while I have outlined the impracticality and numerous harms.

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate, and await his response.
Debate Round No. 4
weather

Pro

How many times must I remind you that this would be different than Iraq. And it would be a worthy cost to pay, for we all love ocean front property, and Mexico can provide. Order can be maintained, More states would be made bringing more national guard to each new state and than it would be determined a crises and they would be deployed.

oh yes how silly of me, I did fail to mention that they not only carry shot guns but handguns, semis and autos. No not all of the drug fields can be Identified, but allot can. Just like in the California mountains, not all the gold can be removed, but allot can. But I believe you re forgetting that we are not debating that we can get rid of all the drugs but oppress the drug lord situation.

Why do we care about damaging the property and land? it is just dirt, and they aren't growing weed in downtown Mazatlan, so there is little chance of collateral.

How about instead of sending the national guard, send the people on well fair we got plenty of those, and they can slowly invade and setup command posts and than we can finish off the job with national guard. If the president he can bypass you state approval thing an take a percentage amount of the guard from each state, thus making a army, and than that with left over army people we can invade.

May I point out some other important facts of this plan. If you haven't noticed, Mexico has slowly been invading g, they haven't declared war but they are invading California. Why not come to them? Make it easier, create jobs in Mexico as school teachers, doctors, nurses, national guard and army, police, administration and government. We can oppress if not get rid of the drug lords, expand the population, become a larger greater country. We also would gain unlimited access to the archaeological sites such as the Maya ruins and the Inca ruins. Not to mention that corona wouldn't be imported beer anymore. With the expansion of land we also could deploy more weather buoys off the coast to gather important weather information which could be used to further gauge global warming.

Want more facts, here are some more. Along with the Jobs listed above we would indeed need more coast guard. We would be able to expand the house and congress giving a more fair chance to some bills. We could map out more of the jungle, all the while researching for new and endangered species. Also with more citizens the government gets more funding, and more taxes, which could mean a tax cut because there is more land and people to cover the cost. We also could find hidden people groups that were native, untouched by the Spanish invasion. With the land owned by us, we can do more stuff, expand. There is also a chance that we can find the lost city's of gold and the fountain of youth. Not only to mention that we can research and figure out what the illness known as "motazuma's revenge" which could be the cure to cancer. With a victorious invasion we can bring Mexican culture into our large melting pot. I must also mention the potential for franchise expansion like cracker barrel, and many others.

With this we could learn more history form the historians of old in Mexico, and we could possibly learn more of what not to do. We also can support ourselves with the vast oil supply in Mexico, and than we would have more water space for off shore drilling, and the room for navy training missions. We also can help inflation, there would be more people, raising the demand for money, deflating inflation you could say. Not to mention the studies of Mexican engineering that we can use here today in America. And just like in America there are many brilliant minds to be discovered in Mexico.

And to think all this mentioned above could belong to America, with just a little money and a little elbow grease.

It has been a pleasure debating with you Heedmyfeed, may you live long and prosper in your life, debating, and on the web.

God speed to all,
Weather
HeedMyFeed

Con

Order can be maintained,..."
You make the blanket statement order can be maintained but you fail to say how. You try to go on by saying that the drug lords can be removed, but the United States empirically has done a bad job in removing drugs from a country. Take for example the current state of drugs in Afghanistan. This shows that the comparison to Iraq is completely warranted, because it would become extremely hard to maintain order.

"oh yes how silly of me, I did fail to mention that they not only carry shot guns but handguns, semis and autos. No not all of the drug fields can be Identified, but allot can. Just like in the California mountains, not all the gold can be removed, but allot can. But I believe you re forgetting that we are not debating that we can get rid of all the drugs but oppress the drug lord situation."
Yes, we will not be able to oppress the drug lord situation because the United States is bad at doing this. Cross-apply my Afghanistan example, showing the United States has done a poor job in maintaining control over drugs in a country. Also, you are stereotyping what a drug lord does, and carries around.

"Why do we care about damaging the property and land? it is just dirt, and they aren't growing weed in downtown Mazatlan, so there is little chance of collateral."
Because, the more property and land the United States destroys, the more money this will cost. Also, you cannot guarantee that there will not be nearby property where innocent families could be living. They could possibly get badly injured or killed while bombing these drug fields.

"How about instead of sending the national guard, send the people on well fair we got plenty of those, and they can slowly invade and setup command posts and than we can finish off the job with national guard. If the president he can bypass you state approval thing an take a percentage amount of the guard from each state, thus making a army,"
Now this is an awfully offensive statement and argument about the people on welfare. Next, you fail to understand that the National Guard troops are needed to stay in the United States, as basically a last defense, and a warning response team. However, even if we do invade with the National Guard it would garner no benefits.

"We can oppress if not get rid of the drug lords, expand the population, become a larger greater country."
I already addressed the drugs and drug lord situation. With the expanding of the population comes more people the United States has to support when they clearly do not want to. This has been seen through British imperialism where they ran out of resources because they had to support too many people.

"Make it easier, create jobs in Mexico as school teachers, doctors, nurses, national guard and army, police, administration and government."
There is a huge problem with your job creating plan. In order for the US government to create jobs, they would have to spend a lot of money trying to create these jobs, in an unsafe part of the world as I have explained. As well, companies have been outsourcing because they do not want to pay the money they do on US owned lands. Therefore, the jobs benefit won't occur. This addresses your history argument as well, because the supposed benefits will be outweighed by the costs. Plus, geologists and historians already do this in Mexico.

"Also with more citizens the government gets more funding,..."
From who?

"And just like in America there are many brilliant minds to be discovered in Mexico."
We can do this without invading, such as a workers visa.

Now onto my contention One
My contention one should be one of the main voting issues, because that shows invading Mexico is impractical. I have successfully refuted all attacks on this contention.

From this I have shown there are no benefits from invading Mexico, just huge costs. So vote CON.

I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate, and wish him luck in future rounds.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by weather 5 years ago
weather
I didn't say you can't crazy monkey, it's that you don't.
Posted by CrazyMonkey 5 years ago
CrazyMonkey
dude r u saying just cause we are democrates we can't know anything about guns? you just lost my vote And the way things are going you needed it
Posted by CrazyMonkey 5 years ago
CrazyMonkey
dude r u saying just cause we are democrates we can't know anything about guns? you just lost my vote And the way things are going you needed it
Posted by TheSexicanMexican 5 years ago
TheSexicanMexican
I must say Pro had some very "unusual points", but Con you had much better points and ideals all points to heedmyfeed on this one
Posted by TFranklin62 5 years ago
TFranklin62
thank you nukethejuice, did u guys even see the 14 billion of marijuana that is being sold in Cali! i mean seriously the taxes would e huge and it is a hugely bad and illy thought through idea bad idea go sit in a corner adn cry!
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
For a claim like this one, Pro needs much stronger points than those provided.
Posted by Epicism 5 years ago
Epicism
@NukeTheJuice

well played.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro's case is absurd, for all the reasons Con gave, plus many more.
Posted by NukeTheJuice 5 years ago
NukeTheJuice
Our national guard cant even control the drugs that are already in our country, let alone anothers.
Posted by trendem 5 years ago
trendem
Conduct: Con.
S & G: Con.
Convincing Arguments: Con. Con showed that invading Mexico is impractical (because the National Guard are needed for US defense and our military is already stretched thin).
Sources: Con.

I was surprised that Con didn't use any arguments about Mexican sovereignty and the harms of imperialism.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jorg 5 years ago
Jorg
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 studentathletechristian8 5 years ago
studentathletechristian8
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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 ANDIAMO2634 5 years ago
ANDIAMO2634
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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 Interrobang 5 years ago
Interrobang
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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 TheSexicanMexican 5 years ago
TheSexicanMexican
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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 Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by eWest 5 years ago
eWest
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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 RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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 Alex 5 years ago
Alex
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by sabrafink 5 years ago
sabrafink
weatherHeedMyFeedTied
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:52