The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
meganlg43
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,284 times Debate No: 3614
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (18)

 

Johnicle

Pro

Tournament: Round 2, One-loss Bracket...

When it comes to Iraq, I think many people would agree with me that we've had enough. The reason that we went in there turned out to be false, but yet we continue to fight... for what? The war in Iraq must end, which is why I stand if firm support of the topic of debate...

The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Observation: Within this debate, I do not have to prove that WHAT the time table should have, simply that there should be one adopted. Therefore, I do not have to say that we will be out of there in 1 year or 100 years but simply that we should set a timetable TO get out of there.

I. The United States has been in Iraq for too long.

A. World Affairs have been upset because of the war.
Because of the war in Iraq, our relations with many countries have been upset. People are beginning to see us as the police of the world, a look that no one wants to have. We should not be seen as the enforcers of our policies on everyone. Each country has their freedom to do as they wish and when we enforce our opinion on other countries, many people get upset.

B. Money is wasted.
Another problem with this war is all the money that goes into it. Presently, the money spent on this war is well over 500 billion dollars. This is a problem because 1) it's a lot of money and 2) The U.S. economy is in a slump and needs all of our money in our own system. Because of this, we must set a timetable to get out of this money hole so that we can keep some of our own money in our own country.

C. If a solution hasn't been reached by now, one won't ever be reached.
The big argument of people in favor of the war in Iraq is that they need us now. But when WON'T they need us? You have to see that we've dug our self into a deep hole, but we must get out of that hole, the best way to do that would be to create a timetable. Once timetables are set (in anything), things seem to get moving more quickly and more efficiently. Let's stop making excuses and make some sort of plan to get out of this hole we've dug ourselves into... Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction (or even the tools to launch them) so let's just get out of there.

II. With a goal (timetable), things will be done in a more efficient way.

A. Iraqi troops/government will be ready to take over.
Once this timetable is set, more will be done to get to the final goal which is Iraq being by itself again. Although they may not be ready as of now, you have to see that they WILL once a timetable is set. A timetable is the ONLY way that we are going to get out of there (since we can't just decide one day to leave, that would be significantly imprudent). Our goals must be set to getting Iraq ready which can ONLY be done with a timetable.

B. If they are not ready, the timetable could prepare emergency extensions.
Going back to the observation, you have to see that I do not have to provide WHAT the timetable is. BUT if I were to create a timetable, I would also include emergency extensions so that we don't create a worse situation. But they will be just that, EMERGENCY. There is no reason that the timetable couldn't have emergency extensions thus you will see that these extensions ensure that we get out of Iraq the best way possible. But we must start with the timetable itself.

III. A timetable should be adopted.
As a summary, we've been in Iraq way too long. We must start thinking about getting out of there which can only be done with a timetable. The timetable could include emergency extensions (for safety purposes) thus having a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is the most prudent option in getting out of Iraq. This would stop us from wasting so much money AND it stop other countries from hating us so much. The timetable makes too much sense to ignore. Thus I urge a Pro vote.

Thanks and good luck to Megan!
meganlg43

Con

"I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments," the president said. "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible."

I agree with this quote from President Bush, which is why I must strongly disagree with the resolution that: The United States should adopt a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq.

I. Against Pro's: The United States has been in Iraq for too long argument:

A. Against Pro's: World Affairs have been upset because of the war:
-We went into this war for many reasons, being the threat from Saddam Hussein, Iraq possibly producing Weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and terrorist links, human rights abuses, Iraq's oil, to spread a Democracy, U.N Resolution Violations, Preemption, and also for intelligence. These were issues that needed to be resolved. Even if resulting in being looked at as the "police of the world". Other countries have always seen us as the "police of the world" so why is this so significant now?
Also, if other countries already don't like us, how will they feel about us when we don't keep our commitments and allow Iraq to worsen all because we just wanted out?

B. Against Pro's: Money is wasted:
Debt is something our country has always had. And while this is costing money our economy still remains one of the best in the world and continues to adjust with this debt. We are accomplishing things in the Iraq war that will help the United States, so the money is not wasted as Pro claims.

C. Against Pro's: If a solution hasn't been reached by now, one won't ever be reached.
After Saddam's overthrow Iraq has been showing signs of significant improvement which can be linked to the fact that we've been over there for this time. Some solutions take time.
Pro says that we can stay over there to solve these problems, we just need to set a date to get out of there, but in this point claims that we're not going to get any further than we already have. Confusing and Contradicting.
In 1990 the IAEA had confirmed that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, that he had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
The United States, had this previous knowledge and knew that Iraq was working to produce WMD's. If we wouldn't have intervened who knows if they would have accomplished this mission or not. That's a pretty big risk.

II. Against Pro's: With a goal (timetable), things will be done in a more efficient way argument:

A. Against Pro's: Iraqi troops/government will be ready to take over.
It cannot be adequately proven that the Iraqi troops and government will be able to take over in what ever allotted time we choose.
The United States would not start doing more to get to the final goal, if it was that easy we would have acquired a timetable a long time ago, we're doing all we can right now.
And if the case is that this time table would cause the United States to take different and more effective measures-- why do we need a time table as an excuse to take these different measures? We can take them without a timetable and allow them to take the time they need.

B. Against Pro's: If they are not ready, the timetable could prepare emergency extensions:
What qualifies as an emergency situation?? And how can we tell if they are honestly ready to be on their own. What is most likely to happen is that Iraq we'll continue to improve and then we'll deploy all troops on the date set because we expect that they'll continue to improve. But if we take out the most important element- the U.S.- how can we know for sure that they won't go back to being similar to where they started?
We can't risk that- because that would be truly wasting our money. We need to be sure.
And that can't happen if we have a timetable.

C. Against Pro's: A timetable should be adopted:
-To Conclude, the only thing that will be accomplished by a timetable is getting out of Iraq. Pro says this will be good because we'll be able to save our money and other countries won't hate us.
For one, we're still going to have a lot of debt--- and out economy is fine, as I have stated before.
Second, this isn't going to magically make other countries like us, they weren't to fond of us before this war, why would they be after this war? This makes Pro's reasons invalid.
Just getting out of Iraq is not going to be for the good. We need to make sure our mission in Iraq is accomplished without the pressure of a timetable.
As President Bush stated in his quote- "Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible."
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Thanks and good luck....

QUOTE>>> You know, he talks about demoralizing the Iraqi people and setting a date for failure. But there is something much worse than that if we DON'T set a deadline. That would be no one winning and no one losing. The "War on Terror" is a war that can not be won. If we continue to stay in Iraq we will be wasting money because we couldn't accept this war as being useless and unnecessary.

IA.>>> I'm going to be attacking this argument by using the reasons we went into Iraq to show how these hold no more weight anymore.

1. Threat of Saddam Hussein>>> Saddam's power is now gone (obviously). In this debate, I'd just like to note that we are NOT debating if going in there was a good idea but rather if we should set a timetable to get out. Saddam's power holds no weight anymore.

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction>>> We found no WMD's thus this holds no weight in if we should set a timetable or not.

3. Terrorism>>> Again, I'd like to bring up that we can NEVER win the "War on Terror". There is nothing more that we can do to stop terrorism.... it will always exist.

4. Human Right Abuses>>> Now that Iraq is out of Saddam's power, it is time we turn over Iraq to Iraqi leaders. If we set a timetable, then Iraqi people will realize that they have to take over soon... thus our timetable will push actions to happen MUCH MORE than if we just pulled out randomly one day. We can't wait forever...

5. Iraq's Oil>>> haha... since the war oil has jumped in price. If we were to pull out of Iraq, oil prices would go down. Turn this to an advantage for the PRO side.

6. To spread democracy>>> Okay... let's spread democracy. The only way we can do that is if we set a timetable in order to push actions further. If we set a timetable, democracy would spread MORE than if America remained the dictatorship-like rulers of Iraq. For the past five years WE have been telling Iraq what to do. Let's put that to a stop and set a timetable.

7. UN resolution violations>>> This holds no weight in the present day and age. This gives no reason as to why to not set a timetable.

8. Preemption and intelligence>>> I'm grouping these together because my argument against them is the same. We can gain nothing more of either of these by staying in Iraq. Therefore, we should set a timetable.

9. Commitments>>> Later in the argument, she talks about commitments. But our commitments will only be met (democracy) if we pull out of Iraq with a timetable. I challenge my opponent to come up with other commitments that won't be met with a timetable.

B.>>> Two things... 1) We haven't always been in debt. And even if we had, that shouldn't mean that we just go and spend whatever we want just because "we've always been in debt." Therefore we should save money where we can and in today's age that is the War in Iraq. 2) Our economy is CONSTANTLY being passed by other economy's because (in major part) of the War in Iraq. If we were to set a timetable, then we could turn our attention to the economy and make it what it used to be.

C.>>> Iraq's improvement is at a slow down. There isn't much more that we can do. Also, she talks about a 1990 idea of Saddam Hussein and his WMD advancements. But today we know that nothing was ever accomplished AND this debate is not about if we should have gone in there but rather if we should set a timetable to come out. As of now, I see no reason as to not set a timetable.

IIA.>>> It can't be adequately proven if the troops of Iraq will be ready or if they won't be ready (no benefit for either of us). But what CAN be proven is if we told Iraqi soldiers that in "X" time they will take over. Then their mind set would immediately move to preparing for that date. She talks about the United States and them no needing to change anything. But us setting a timetable doesn't affect us, but rather the Iraqi people. Therefore, THEY would need to be the people to make the changes, and I really don't see EITHER the US or Iraq as doing everything that they can (as my opponent insists). What I do know is that they WILL be doing everything they can if a timetable is set.

B.>>> Let's get one thing straight, we ARE going to have to get out of Iraq sometime. What is the best way? To set a timetable. (specifically what my opponent said in "B" in her last speech) She says that we can't be sure if they will be ready, but will we ever "know"? NO... We may have to take some risks but to just sit until we're 100% then we will never get out of Iraq. Also, this timetable will be set by our government and will set an appropriate date for when America believes that Iraq will be ready. My opponent assumes that this timetable is a "one second" timetable but that simply is not true. I'm sure that our government will look at all angles to determine what the best "timetable" time is. AND if emergency time extensions are needed, they can be originally included in the plan. All I have to show is that a timetable SHOULD be adopted, and I would assume that emergency actions can be included in that plan if need be (but once again I do not have to show WHAT it is but if there SHOULD be one).

C(one)>>> We will still be in debt but that is NOT a reason to make our debt any worse. A timetable will eventually allow this debt to slow down so we aren't going in debt an extra million dollars every 12 seconds.

C(second)>>> Setting a timetable will have NO negative effect on how much people will like us. It may actually help us in trying to make Iraq itself again. That should make people like us more. But if we are to stay in there, it won't make people like us more and it will instead push peoples hate for us. That is what I meant by this argument.

C(general)>>> Our mission can be accomplished if we set a timetable. We must do this sometime and as this topic of debate does not set a WHEN but rather an IF... we SHOULD do this.

To conclude, I offer a quote from me...

"Again the quote... we already have failure and the sooner we accept it the better off all of us will be."-- quote from me ;-)

Thanks!
meganlg43

Con

The war in general now has become not about who wins or loses. It's become mostly helping the Iraqi government, and establishing a democracy over there. "The War on Terror" is a difficult war to win, but just because it's difficult and possibly impossible, doesn't mean we're not helping the cause, even if we're not completely destroying the problem, we can still be making positive progress.

1A-
Threat of Saddam Hussein>>The threat of Saddam Hussein is gone, but he has still left a mess in Iraq. As mess that the United States is trying to help clean up.

WMD>> These were just listed reasons of why we went into Iraq in the 1st place, not why were still there, although some of them are why we went in AND why we're still there.

Terrorism>> Just because terrorism will always exist doesn't mean that our efforts are pointless, especially if we're helping at least a little. We are making progress to stop some terrorists, and that seems worth it.
Taking into consideration that all it takes is one terrorist to take a lot of lives.

Human Right Abuses>> We're not going to just randomly pull out one day. We're going to gradually reduce the amount of troops we have stationed. If we set a date and then just take out all of our troops, that would be incredibly overwhelming to the Iraqi leaders, and in the end being trouble to the United States because we would have wasted our money to have them go back to similar ways that they were before.

Iraq's Oil>> How can it be proven that if we pulled out that oil prices would go down? Also, my stance in this debate is not necessarily that we should stay in Iraq forever, just that a time table is NOT going to help in the process of getting out because there are things we need to tend to. So this is not an advantage to Pro

To spread democracy>> The United States has not been telling Iraq what to do, we've been working with them to compromise. They agreed to work with us, how horrible would it be of the U.S. to start helping them with this, let them make progress, then tell them - "Oh by the way, were leaving on this day, so figure it out yourself!"

UN resolution violations, Preemption, and intelligence>> again, these is just a reason why we went into Iraq in the first place, even if our mission in these areas has already been accomplished. Also, with intelligence, we always have more to learn.

---I would also like to point out that while Pro claimed before that we shouldn't be over there because we're being seen as the police of the world- which we have always been, he does not answer why that's so significant now.

Our Commitments to Iraq>>> I'll answer this with another quote from Bush:
"We have made clear commitments before the world, and America will keep those commitments. First, we will take every necessary measure to assure the safety of American and coalition personnel, and the security of Iraqi citizens. We're on the offensive against the killers and terrorists in that country, and we will stay on the offensive. In and around Fallujah, U.S. Marines are maintaining pressure on Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters and other militants. We're keeping that pressure on to ensure that Fallujah ceases to be an enemy sanctuary. In northern sectors of the city, elements of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force are prepared to strike at terrorist fighters and prevent a resurgence of violence and chaos. South of the city, the Marines are disrupting enemy attacks on our supply routes and routing out anti-coalition fighters...
We're helping to build Iraqi forces that can take responsibility for security. And our forces are also helping to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies to families that suffer as a result of the chaos in certain communities created by the terrorists and those who want to halt the advance of freedom."

B. My point was never that just because we've always been in debt we should stay there. It was only that we know how to deal with it and that our economy is still one of the best in the world.

IIA.
By not having a time table we allow the Iraqi government to progress at there own pace instead of overwhelming and pressuring them. To be successful in this mission they need to be able to take this difficult change at there own pace, and not have the Untied States trying to make them move faster than they can because we want out by a certain date. If we set a time table, our mission will not be accomplished because we'll be more focused on getting out of Iraq rather than completing the purpose that we were there for in the first place.

B. We are going to have to get out of Iraq, but NOT before they're ready. They need to be able to go at there own pace, then we can gradually reduce our number of troops-- Pro said before, that by setting a time table it will have the Iraqi Leaders realize that they have to take over soon, but gradually reducing the number of troops when they're getting closer to where they need to be does the same thing!! -but in a BETTER way.
It sends the same message that Pro claims is sent by a timetable…but they still have our help, we need to ease them off our help to be successful, and that cant happen with a timetable.

C2-->Making Iraq itself again?? Isn't this what we're trying to get away from because of all the problems they were having before?

C-general--> Our mission can not be accomplished through a time table, the only mission that can be accomplished through a timetable is getting out of Iraq... that's it.
A timetable would not be there to help the REAL reasons we went over to Iraq…it would only for the people who want to get out,
because that's the only mission that can be accomplished by a time table.

Again, the quote from president Bush to conclude:
"Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

Rather than going line by line, my opponent and I have agreed that the last round should be a summary and voting issues. Thus, I will summarize why I believe that PRO wins this round...

1. A timetable would help progression.
-My most important argument in this round continues to be that if a timetable was set, then progression in Iraq would be increased. If we were to tell Iraqi leaders that we were going to leave them in "X" time, then they would realize that they need to be ready by then. This is why we SHOULD adopt a timetable. We're going to have to get out of Iraq sometime (I don't think my opponent can deny that), so adopting a timetable is the best way to do it.

2. The timetable would be appropriate.
As I've previously stated, I do not have to show what the timetable is. But we must assume that our government would be appropriate with it. Thus, the following would PROBABLY be included.

1) An appropriate time.
I really don't think that the timetable would be a week or two... Rather, I would guess that it would be maybe a year or two (just a guess). The government would weigh all concerns and would then set an appropriate timetable. It's much better than not adopting a timetable and just immediately pulling out.

2) An appropriate amount.
If the government was smart, the timetable could include HOW MANY people pull out. Thus the timetable could support the idea of a gradual withdrawal... which, once again, is better than any other way of pulling out of Iraq.

3) Appropriate Emergencies.
If there was an emergency and the safety of the U.S. was at risk, I'm sure that the government would allow a emergency extension could be included within the timetable.

--->Because of all of these, the timetable has few (if any) costs of pulling out of Iraq. My opponent and I both agree that we have to get out of Iraq and this is the best way to do it. Thus we SHOULD do it.

To conclude, I disagree with President Bush, setting a date for withdrawal is not setting a date for failure, but rather a goal. And with a goal, progression can be made which sounds to me that we are trying to succeed rather than fail. Thus, I urge you to see that the best way to pull out of Iraq is to adopt a timetable, therefore it SHOULD happen.

Please vote PRO.

Thank You for this great debate Megan... Again, I could use all 8,000 characters but this is what the round truly comes down to. Good luck in your final round and in the voting period!
meganlg43

Con

Hola Luke, well here goes round 3…

1. A timetable is ineffective.
It's obvious that I can't deny that we should get out of Iraq, but this debate is not about whether or not we should get out of Iraq, but rather how we go about the process and which would be more effective. Hopefully through this final speech you will see that best and MOST EFFECTIVE way to go about a withdrawal for Iraq would be WITHOUT a timetable.
Because the ONLY thing a timetable accomplishes is getting out of Iraq by a certain date. It does not uniquely have any different effects than any other option.

A timetable is inappropriate.
2. My opponent can assume that our government would be appropriate with it, but if that was true then why haven't they created one yet?
There have been propositions for a timetable in Washington, and yet constantly vetoed.
Therefore I can assume they have their reasons for rejecting this idea, and obviously it's because a timetable would be a bad idea.

3. Just because we don't have a time table doesn't me that were just going to randomly pull out all of our troops one day. A much better idea would be to gradually reduce our troops without a planned date. A planned date just overwhelms both the U.S. and Iraq and takes away from our true goal, being to help Iraq.
With a time table all we're thinking about is helping ourselves. And if we do that, we're just wasting money, and valuable lives over in Iraq.
Which is why we shouldn't have a timetable, and this resolution should be rejected.

4. If were going to need these emergency extensions then how obviously the government wasn't able to think our withdrawal date through as Pro claims they would be able to.
Because if the emergency extensions end up needing to be used, then it further proves that having a time table in Iraq was a bad idea in the first place.
It would be the fact that we would end up saying that were going to deploy at a certain date, and putting Iraq, and United States, under pressure that caused the trouble that would call for an emergency extension.
A trouble that can be avoided if we don't have a timetable.

This debate has mainly come down to which method would be the best and most effective way to get out of Iraq. The best and most effective way will be without a timetable.
Because without a timetable we can still accomplish all the things that are supposedly accomplished through a time table.

Pro's argument is that: A timetable will have Iraq realize there going to have to take over soon.
But what needs to be seen is that we do NOT need a time table for this effect, gradually reducing the number of troops and easing them off our help will be most effective.
Pro has also claimed that we can still do this with a timetable and set dates for deployment of a certain number of troops, but that won't help because we may still need those troops over there to accomplish our mission, we need to gradually reduce the number when we feel and know they're ready to be without them…not just a guess of when they will be
...in other words, not a timetable.

The Pro side of this debate is selfish, because all it thinks about is getting out of Iraq, not truly helping Iraq. Which is why it should result in a CON vote.
The Pro side is only able to uniquely accomplish one thing. And that's having the certainty of when we will get out-- and that's not necessarily a good thing. Because it can result in being a waste of money, time, and lives.

In the end, setting a date for withdrawal IS, in fact, setting a date for failure. And that is irresponsible.

Thanks for the great debate Luke :) and good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
Also no democracy has EVER been established through use of force by another nation. Americans had to first lay down thier lives before we recieved assistance from the French Navy (without which we surely would not have disuaded the British) again your arguments are valid but more wieght is given if used in conjunction with history
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
a suggestion to johnicle -

use historical context to illustrate your point further. Simply stating opinions can be easily overturned while iff using history to back up statements gives context and reality to the point of your statements. Example: google Flavian and Hannibal and the war that ensues in ancient Rome.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
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 The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
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 magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Noblethe3rd 9 years ago
Noblethe3rd
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
Johniclemeganlg43Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30