The Instigator
zlharris
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Alexby1
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18 years of age.

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  
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: 11/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,863 times Debate No: 10091
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

zlharris

Pro

The consumption of alcoholic beverages by people throughout the world can be seen in several different contexts. Consumption can be social, religious, or even medicinal. Throughout the world people partake in the consumption of alcohol in all of these contexts and a large percentage have the drinking age set at least at 18 years of age. I will be advocating that the drinking age be lowered within the United States to 16 years while under the supervision of a parent or guardian and 18 years without supervision.

Supporting my argument I offer the following points with their associated logic and reasoning.

I. If you are old enough to give the ultimate sacrifice for your country while serving in the military at the age of 18, then you are old enough to consume alcohol at such an age without the supervision of a parent or guardian, or any other person. There have been hundreds of thousands of men and women who have sacrificed their lives for the freedom of fellow citizens, including those that make such legislation to prevent them from drinking at 18, and yet they cannot "legally" partake in consumption of alcohol along with those who do not serve. A man who is 18 can travel halfway around the world to have blazing hot pieces of shrapnel slice his body, yet cannot drink an alcoholic beverage in his home country? The potential sacrifices that servicemen and servicewomen make for their fellow citizens should afford them the right to drink at 18. Many of these service people never are given the thanks and respect that they deserve, yet the law says you cannot drink at 18? Furthermore, many service men and women who may be under aged within the United States can consume alcoholic beverages outside of the country while in service due to the lower age requirements in foreign countries. The current age of 21 years to consume alcoholic beverages simply doesn't add up. When thinking for yourself about what the drinking age should be, how would you feel if you were responsible enough at 18 years of age to wield a fully automatic weapon, potentially have the chance/power to take another life from this world or worse have someone take yours, yet you can't consume an alcoholic beverage "legally" in your own home country.

II. The current legal age to consume alcohol is 21. This age requirement has caused countless illegal occurrences of under aged drinking and the detrimental mindset that so many teenagers experience, binge drinking. Because of the current age limitations people under the age of 21 have taken the mindset that drinking, particularly in excessive amounts, is "cool" and "rebellious." These mindsets have led to more teenagers between the ages of 16-20 being involved in dangerous under aged drinking behaviors/situations. It can be observed that as someone reaches the age of 21, in most cases their past drinking habits are altered because drinking no longer has a feeling of being a rebellious, "cool" activity. At 21 alcohol consumption loses its rebellious nature and is simply another activity that people generally partake in. At 21 years of age, people don't have to be "sneaky" or secretive; they can partake in a more responsible manner on a day-to-day basis. While lowering the drinking age to 18 may not completely eliminate illegal drinking, I believe it will significantly reduce the rebellious connotations associated with under aged alcohol consumption and make consumption a more common habit, giving those who are technically classified as adults [according to law], the chance to exhibit their responsibility in handling adult matters, including alcohol consumption.

III. Education and leading by example regardless of the set drinking age may be the best resource for encouraging responsible alcoholic consumption. Lowering the drinking age to 18 years of age without supervision of a parent or guardian and 16 while under supervision will allow for parents to educate their children about proper drinking habits and the responsibility associated with alcohol consumption. Currently with the drinking age set at 21 years, some parents may feel insecure about letting their children partake in the consumption of alcoholic beverages. By implementing my suggested ages of 18 and 16, parents should feel more comfortable introducing their children to the both the pleasures of drinking and the consequences at an earlier age. This would allow teenagers to be less likely to binge drink because they have learned by copying their parents' responsible drinking habits. While there are obvious situations in which the parents may exhibit irresponsible drinking habits, I believe that the number of cases would be far less numerable than the successes that would be seen through the proper learned drinking behaviors by teenagers from their parents.

IV. My final point, with the first three points aside, is that thousands of people drink under aged and illegally everyday in the United States, and despite the theory that the law should reduce under aged drinking, it seemingly only increases the daily under aged related tickets given by police officers. Teenagers are going to drink under age, thousands do everyday. Thousands of parents let their kids drink while under supervision in family settings allowing them the ability to foster responsible drinking habits. The law requiring people to be 21 years of age exists, but effectively does nothing to stop under aged drinking and only increases police reports, leaves parents restless about instilling responsible drinking habits with their children through first hand experiences and pads the pockets of lawyers who undertake hundreds of under aged consumption or possession cases each year. Lowering the age to 18 wouldn't't necessarily eliminate all cases of under aged drinking infractions, but it would certainly allow for more flexibility for parents/guardians, it would reduce the amount of binge drinking and would allow for police to focus their efforts on actually protecting people from crime instead of being petty babysitters watching over a teenager's shoulder to make sure their red solo cup is actually filled with soda rather than beer.

**This debate is for an advocacy and opposition class that I am taking at N.C. State University. I would like to ask that responses actually be intellectual and well rounded so that I may submit this debate for a grade. Thank you and good luck.**
Alexby1

Con

I thank my opponent for this relevant debate, and I wish him luck with his assignment.

I negate the resolution, "the drinking age be lowered within the United States to 16 years while under the supervision of a parent or guardian and 18 years without supervision."

-OBSERVATION-

The goal of this debate should be to determine which solution (more relaxed policies on alcohol on the affirmative, or the status quo on the negative) will ameliorate society by effectively discouraging drinking and reducing the negative side effects associated with alcohol.

If my opponent can prove that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking, he has won. If I prove that lowering the drinking age will not improve the situation, I have won.

--

CONTENTION: A lowered drinking age will encourage behavior that impedes the successful progress of society.

By lowering the legal drinking age, the US government would be employing counterproductive policies. The goal of policy action with regard to the drinking age should always be to discourage and reduce drinking rates; however, it can be shown both empirically and logically that a lower drinking age will only spawn a rejuvenated and enlarged culture of drinking. This would have several dire and most concerning ramifications for the citizens of the United States.

Empirically, the drinking age of 21 years old has been quite successful. The Washington Post of July 12th, 2009 cited a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry which reported that, because of the recently raised drinking age, "…young people more often have made the decision not to drink … when young people know that the law will be upheld, they adjust their behavior." [1] This is significant because it shows that the drinking age is a successful policy.

Moreover, this means that a lower drinking age would be a highly negative turn of events for society. Medline Plus, a service of the US National Library of Medicine and of the National Institutes of Health, affirmed on September 18th, 2009 that, "People who grew up in a place and time when they could legally buy alcohol before age 21 are more likely than others to be alcoholics or have a drug problem, even well into adulthood…" [2] This article cites research by Dr. Karen Norberg, a research instructor in psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Her recent study supported the hypothesis that drinking at an early age has profound, long-term detriments: she found through careful study that, "…people who had been allowed to buy liquor legally before age 21 were 33 percent more likely to have suffered from alcoholism in the year before they were surveyed. Drinking at a younger age also was found to increase the risk of abusing other drugs. Those allowed to drink legally before age 21 were 70 percent more likely to have had a problem with drugs than were those who had to wait until 21 to drink legally…" [2] Dr. Marc Galanter, director of the division of alcoholism and drug abuse at New York University School of Medicine, makes clear how serious this impact really is: "Even in [people's] 40s and 50s, this impact was felt." [2]

On top of the highly dangerous alcohol and drug problems set in motion by drinking at a young age, early use of alcohol makes teenagers more prone to activities resulting in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. A study conducted by Angela Fertig of the University of Georgia found this year that, "…a lower drinking age increases risky sexual behavior among young people, and that leads to more unplanned pregnancies that result in premature birth and low birth weight … when it's easier for young people to get alcohol, birth outcomes are worse." [3] This is detrimental to the prosperity and high quality of life held dear by all Americans. This is significant because, "Teenagers who get pregnant unexpectedly are less likely to receive good prenatal care and may not take as much interest in the child as someone who tried to get pregnant … As a result of these behaviors on the mom's part, the child ends up with worse outcomes." [3]

The use of alcohol by young Americans is a serious problem that must be addressed; however, as I have shown, the drinking age of 21 is the best way we currently have to combat substance abuse and teenage pregnancy.

-REFUTATIONS-

I. My opponent's first contention is that Americans who are old enough to serve in the armed forces should similarly be allowed to use alcohol. He seems to believe that it would be beneficial to our servicemen and women to be allowed to drink. I have two responses to this argument:

A. There are unique harms associated with drinking at an early age that are not present in military service at a young age. That is, military service is equally dangerous whether a soldier is 18 or 25 years old; on the other hand, drinking at age 18 is much more harmful than drinking at age 25. This is shown quite clearly in the Norberg and Fertig studies I cited in my argument. Therefore, it is logically reasonable to prevent teenagers from consuming harmful substances while not impeding their service to our country.

B. If there is indeed a problem, it is not a problem with the drinking age, but rather with the minimum age of eligibility for military service. If my opponent is so concerned with the safety of our young ones, I ask him, why is it acceptable for teenagers to serve in the military?

-

II. My opponent's second contention is that teens feel a sense of rebellion when they secretively use alcohol, and that they would not feel the same thrill if it were legal for them to use alcohol. This argument is logically unreasonable. When an activity such as drinking is condoned and accepted by society, teenagers will certainly partake in that activity more frequently and to a greater extent. In fact, one way that many teens gain access to alcohol is through older friends. Now, that means an 18 year old getting a 22 year old friend to by him or her alcohol; but, if 18 year olds or even 16 year olds were suddenly allowed to buy alcohol, this would mean that 14 and 13 year olds would increasingly have access to such dangerous substances, which would only exacerbate the issues I presented in my contention.

-

III. My opponent's third contention is that responsible parents will teach responsible behavior to their children, but this rests on the assumption that responsibility comes naturally with age. Although this may be partially true, responsibility is largely taught by society's norms. After several generations of children who grow up drinking alcohol, experiencing substance abuse problems, and early pregnancies, the values we cherish today will likely be eroded to the point that parents would encourage risky behavior in their children.

-

IV. Finally, my opponent states that the cost to our legal system is a reason why we should change the drinking age. He is essentially arguing that we should make shoplifting legal so that we do not have to prosecute the shoplifters.

-CONCLUSION-

Vote CON.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

[2] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
---> Methodology of the Norberg study: "Norberg … analyzed surveys of nearly 34,000 people born in the United States between 1948 and 1970, examining their records to determine if rates of alcoholism and drug abuse differed depending on their states' liquor-buying laws at the time the participants were teens or young adults. [This was possible because] In the early 1970s, 26 states lowered the drinking age to 18 after the federal voting age was lowered to 18, Norberg said. After passage in 1984 of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the federal government pressured states to increase the drinking age or forfeit highway funds."

[3] http://www.uga.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
zlharris

Pro

My Opponent's Observation

"The goal of this debate should be to determine which solution (more relaxed policies on alcohol on the affirmative, or the status quo on the negative) will ameliorate society by effectively discouraging drinking and reducing the negative side effects associated with alcohol."
"If my opponent can prove that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking, he has won. If I prove that lowering the drinking age will not improve the situation, I have won."

Our intention should not be to prove that drinking can be "discouraged" through relaxed policies or the status quo, but to prove that drinking can become safer and a more responsible activity for those partaking.

Refutation

My opponent argues that "A lowered drinking age will encourage behavior that impedes the successful progress of society."

To begin, society will progress without regard to a certain drinking age. Simply put, natural selection will always advance society and there will always be those who choose not to partake in drinking at any age. Therefore, society will have progress and is too big to be affected by under aged drinking laws.

Opponent's 2nd Contention

"People who grew up in a place and time when they could legally buy alcohol before age 21 are more likely than others to be alcoholics or have a drug problem, even well into adulthood…"

Even now, in a place and time when people can only legally buy alcohol when over the age of 21, are there people who given their own personal characteristics are more likely to become alcoholics or have a drug problem. So should we penalize those people who are mature and responsible enough to handle the responsibility of drinking at an age lower than the current legal one of 21?

Opponent's 3rd Contention

"Early use of alcohol makes teenagers more prone to activities resulting in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies."

This contention made by my opponent, once again may be true. However, it falls outside the relevancy of our debate. We are once again arguing, lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Unplanned pregnancies by teenagers occur everyday. Sure teenagers may be under the influence of alcohol, but maybe we should be focusing more on sex education, which for me only happened like twice throughout my entire grade school experience, instead of trying to restrict alcohol. And this leads back to my contention that teenagers most often binge drink when they do partake in illegal consumption. The idea of binge drinking in teenagers is built on the idea, that those who are under aged will consume large quantities of alcohol because they are only able to get alcohol once in a while or on special occasions, so therefore they are going to take advantage and drink larger quantities. And this more than likely leads to actions resulting in possible pregnancies, which could be avoided if the drinking age were lowered, thus changing the social status quo towards drinking to be more responsible and controlled.

Lastly I would like to rebut my opponent's refutations.

I. "My opponent's first contention is that Americans who are old enough to serve in the armed forces should similarly be allowed to use alcohol. He seems to believe that it would be beneficial to our servicemen and women to be allowed to drink."

I would like to focus on one word in my opponent's refutation, "beneficial." In my first contention, no where did I mention that consumption of alcohol by our service men and women would be "beneficial." Let's look at the definition of beneficial.

Beneficial- conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful [dictionary.com]

So I ask… Is it beneficial for our service men and women to be serving at all? Is it beneficial for them to be allowed to smoke or chew tobacco? Is it beneficial for them to have bullets whizzing by their heads? Is it beneficial for the psychological damage that they may incur? No it may not be beneficial for them to consume alcohol, at 18 or at 21, but if they are experiencing all these other things, why not be allowed to legally partake in the consumption of an alcoholic beverage?

My opponent also refutes with, "If there is indeed a problem, it is not a problem with the drinking age, but rather with the minimum age of eligibility for military service."

The acceptability of serving at 18 years of age is supported by the fact that in terms of legality at 18 years of age a man or woman is lawfully an adult. Adults serve in the military, so therefore teenagers 18 and 19 years old are able and many willing to serve in the armed forces. If our military, the most powerful and possibly well organized and respected, can trust that the responsibility of an 18 year old is good enough to go to war, then why can't we trust their responsibility in terms of alcohol consumption?

II. I would like to rebut my opponent's argument for my contention being logically unreasonable. My opponent says, "When an activity such as drinking is condoned and accepted by society, teenagers will certainly partake in that activity more frequently and to a greater extent."

I argue the opposition of this point, in that when drinking is condoned and accepted by society, teenagers will partake more frequently, but to a lesser extent. As I mentioned before, the idea of binge drinking in teenagers is built on the idea, that those who are under aged will consume large quantities of alcohol because they are only able to get alcohol once in a while or on special occasions, so therefore they are going to take advantage and drink larger quantities. By lowering the drinking age, we are condoning drinking, but condoning in a manner which yields a sense of openness and responsibility. I would much rather see a teenager be able to drink legally and responsibly over the course of more occasions, than drink once, binge and potentially die from alcohol poisoning. The fact is teenagers, as my opponent affirms, are going to have access to alcohol whether they can legally or illegally. Opponent: "In fact, one way that many teens gain access to alcohol is through older friends. Now, that means an 18 year old getting a 22 year old friend to by him or her alcohol." We should condone a lower drinking age to reduce the occasions of binge drinking and foster responsible drinking habits

III. Responsibility does come naturally. However, over the course of several generations instead of seeing our society's values wither away, we should see improved drinking habits and more responsible adults. Good teaching will foster more good teaching. My opponent seemingly argues that all children will grow up with bad habits and that several generations will erode our values. However, it would be logically unreasonable to assume that all children would be raised with bad habits towards alcohol, or other drugs, or early pregnancies. And moreover, it would be more likely that a greater percentage would be fostered with better habits. Many drug commercials today talk about parents being open with their children about drug use. Our society should be open with its children about alcohol abuse. Lowering the drinking age allows for this kind of openness. Children would be raised with good drinking habits and that would breed future generations with responsible alcohol consumption habits if the age were lowered to 18.

IV. I am simply stating that officers should be more focused on stopping shoplifters rather than hunting down teenagers at a football game, or at a party who are partaking in a few alcoholic beverages. And quite frankly, if an officer was faced with a choice between two situations…

1. knowing of an 18 year old drinking a beer under aged.
Or
2. A shoplifter stealing hundreds of dollars of merchandise.

Which would he choose? I sure hope in our society today he would pursue the latter. So therefore, shoplifting and under aged drinking cannot be compared.

Conclusion

Vote Pro.
Alexby1

Con

-OBSERVATION-

I originally stated that whichever policy discourages drinking should be chosen, and I stand by this idea now. Drinking is almost never good for society, even (as my opponent suggests) in moderation.

-REFUTATIONS TO MY ARGUMENTS-

"…society will progress without regard to a certain drinking age. Simply put, natural selection will always advance society and there will always be those who choose not to partake in drinking at any age. Therefore, society will have progress and is too big to be affected by under aged drinking laws."

If this is true, then there is no reason for us to debate the issue. If there will be no effect on society, then it is futile to waste time and energy changing the status quo. This idea would work for the CON side, should it be true.

Unfortunately, however, a change in the legal drinking age would encourage more drinking, which would affect society through higher levels of substance abuse, alcohol-related crime and accidents, and teen pregnancies. This is because the majority of Americans do follow the law and wait to drink until age 21.

Until my opponent presents a survey of Americans showing that a majority of Americans do not wait to drink, then he cannot show that the current laws fail.

--

"Even now, in a place and time when people can only legally buy alcohol when over the age of 21, are there people who given their own personal characteristics are more likely to become alcoholics or have a drug problem. So should we penalize those people who are mature and responsible enough to handle the responsibility of drinking at an age lower than the current legal one of 21?"

There are always some members of society who are more prone to substance abuse problems than others. However, the Norberg study shows quite plainly that those individuals who chose to drink before age 21 were a third more likely to have problems with alcohol later in life, and 70% more likely to have drug problems.[1] By lowering the drinking age, we would allow substance abuse to increase much more rapidly and become more widespread than it is now.

--

"This contention made by my opponent, once again may be true. However, it falls outside the relevancy of our debate. We are once again arguing, lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Unplanned pregnancies by teenagers occur everyday. Sure teenagers may be under the influence of alcohol, but maybe we should be focusing more on sex education…"

My opponent has conceded that my teen pregnancy contention is true.

I agree that we are debating about lowering the drinking age. One effect of lowering the drinking age would be more frequent and widespread teen pregnancies, which is obviously a problem for the US.

Sex education is a useful tool to combat teenage pregnancies, but that is irrelevant to this debate about the drinking age.

--

"And this leads back to my contention that teenagers most often binge drink when they do partake in illegal consumption. The idea of binge drinking in teenagers is built on the idea, that those who are under aged will consume large quantities of alcohol because they are only able to get alcohol once in a while or on special occasions, so therefore they are going to take advantage and drink larger quantities."

Binge drinking will not be solved by lowering the drinking age. It will always happen; in fact, if we do lower the legal drinking age, we will only change the nature of binge drinking from a phenomenon among college students to a phenomenon among high schoolers. This can be seen not only logically, but also in other countries.

if we lower the drinking age to 18 or even 16, drinking will become more important for high schoolers, because they will have more contact with alcohol. This will encourage them to begin "bingeing," which will be more serious because of their younger age.

Newsweek reported in September 2008 that "In England and Germany, where the drinking age is already 18, bingeing is also a growing problem."[2]

--

"And this more than likely leads to actions resulting in possible pregnancies, which could be avoided if the drinking age were lowered, thus changing the social status quo towards drinking to be more responsible and controlled."

A lowered drinking age will only encourage drinking at a younger age, which will lead to even more substance abuse problems and pregnancies in even younger children.

-REFUTATIONS TO MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS-

I. Service in the Armed Forces & Alcohol

"In my first contention, no where did I mention that consumption of alcohol by our service men and women would be 'beneficial' … Is it beneficial for our service men and women to be serving at all? Is it beneficial for them to be allowed to smoke or chew tobacco? Is it beneficial for them to have bullets whizzing by their heads? Is it beneficial for the psychological damage that they may incur? No it may not be beneficial for them to consume alcohol, at 18 or at 21, but if they are experiencing all these other things, why not be allowed to legally partake in the consumption of an alcoholic beverage?"

My opponent has not explained why being put in a dangerous war zone should allow members of them military to drink a glass of beer. What I explained in Round 1, and what my opponent completely ignored, is that there are unique harms associated with drinking at a young age, whereas military service is equally dangerous at 18 as it is at 27.

"If our military, the most powerful and possibly well organized and respected, can trust that the responsibility of an 18 year old is good enough to go to war, then why can't we trust their responsibility in terms of alcohol consumption?"

It is not that we cannot trust them, but that it would be dangerous to their health and general well-being to drink alcohol.

II. Binge Drinking

As I stated earlier this round, lowering the drinking age will cause a shift in the population that partakes in binge drinking, so that it will then be 16 year olds who drink at such unhealthy quantities. My opponent seems to have misunderstood the idea that underage Americans have access to alcohol through older friends. This actually shows that, if we lower the drinking age, younger and younger teenagers would begin drinking. That would be especially harmful because the younger a person is, the more harmful alcohol is.

III. Teaching of Responsible Drinking Habits

In response to my ideas about his third conention, my opponent only restates what he already told us in Round 1. Unfortunately, this remains illogical and untrue. A lower drinking age will foster more early drinking. Early drinking leads to drug problems[1] and unplanned teen pregnancies.[3] Parents who are addicted to dangerous substances and who are unready to raise children in the first place will not even begin to teach their young ones responsible habits. This is from where the moral degradation derives.

IV. Law Enforcement Resources

My opponent continues to believe that teenage drinking is not a serious problem. He also twisted my analogy without looking at its real meaning: he is advocating that the US make a crime legal, so that we don't have to "waste" resources enforcing the law. So, should we also make murder or armed robbery legal? Aren't we wasting resources arresting those criminals, too?

Shoplifting and underage drinking can most definitely be compared. They are both crimes.

-SUMMARY-

Drinking is a serious problem in our society that must be curbed.

The policy that my opponent supports will only encourage underage drinking, which causes substance abuse and unplanned teen pregnancies, among other devastating harms. Binge drinking will increase and unhealthy habits will be taught to children.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote CON.

[1] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.newsweek.com...
[3] http://www.uga.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
zlharris

Pro

zlharris forfeited this round.
Alexby1

Con

As my opponent forfeited this round, extend all of my arguments.

-SUMMARY-

I have shown throughout the debate that drinking is negative for society and for individuals. I emphasized two major impacts: substance abuse problems later in life, and teen pregnancies. Both of these harms are exacerbated by teenage drinking. My opponent did not provide adequate refutations to either idea.

---

As for my opponent's case, his ideas are that:

(i) military service-members should be allowed to drink before age 21,

(ii) binge drinking will decrease with a lower drinking age,

(iii) Parents will teach responsible habits to their children, and

(iv) Police resources are "wasted" arresting and looking for underage drinking

Unfortunately for him, all of these ideas are flawed.

He never gave a valid, logical reason for which members of the armed forces should be allowed to drink while they are teenagers. On the other hand, I have shown that it would be harmful for young military members to drink, and so they ought not be allowed to do so.

I have also shown that binge drinking - while it might subside among 18 year olds - would only spread among even younger children if the drinking age were lowered to 18.

The parents he imagines teaching responsible habits to their children are the same individuals who have substance abuse problems and are too young to be responsible parents anyway.

The resources he considers to be "wasted" arresting underage drinkers are actually well used, and are working to prevent the harmful impacts of underage drinking.

---

It is clear that a lowered drinking age is the wrong choice for America. Please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
I'd like to see an RFD from zlharris … ?
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
Conduct: Con. Pro forfeited one round.

S&G: Con. Pro had issues with comma use and some fragments.

Arguments: Con. Pro never didn't have adequate links, and wasn't able to refute all of Con's points because of the forfeit.

Sources: Con. Pro had none.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
zlharrisAlexby1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
zlharrisAlexby1Tied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
zlharrisAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
zlharrisAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
zlharrisAlexby1Tied
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 zlharris 7 years ago
zlharris
zlharrisAlexby1Tied
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