The Instigator
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
66 Points
The Contender
blond_guy
Con (against)
Losing
54 Points

The next President of the US SHOULD meet with Raul Castro- if he is elected President of Cuba

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,055 times Debate No: 2940
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (28)

 

Mangani

Pro

Hillary Clinton's nads are as big as McCain's... oooooooohhh... Too bad that macho rhetoric hasn't worked for the past 50+ years. The regime in Cuba is hardly "rogue", and if it IS, it's leaders should be engaged and at least spoken to- after all, "el bebe que no llora no recibe leche" (baby don't cry, baby don't get fed).

What is the harm in Obama meeting with Castro, dictating to him his concerns, and receive any feedback in return? Does HC suggest we go another 50years without recognizing the Cuban regime as legitimate??? What good has that done for ANYONE??? O, I know- they have very good healthcare and a great educational system. I am sure the political prisoners and prisoners of conscience rotting in Cuban prisons are DYING for a US President to come in and argue their cause!

I'm just DYYYYING to hear a logical argument as to why the next President of the US shouldn't speak with the next President of Cuba...
blond_guy

Con

America can never make Cuba release any prisoners or change the way they run the country. Last time we did that Fidel Castro took over the island with 200 men. Why? Because all the Cubans who he was supposed to "fight", joined him as he went along taking over Cuba. And why? Because 49 years ago, they were all sick of having America telling Cuba what to do. There was racism, poverty, and Batista killed more people than Fidel ever did.

If Obama goes to Cuba, there will be nothing to discuss. It's unnecessary. Castro will never back down. They will give Obama the finger like they did to JFK and there's nothing we can do about it. Obama thinks it'll look good going to Cuba but he doesn't know what he's talking about. Obama will only help Raul tell Cubans how terrible America is, telling them what to do (just like Fidel did for the past 50 years). And frankly, Obama can't go telling them what to do and that's not even their intention. Either Obama puts something on the table or they won't even let him step foot into Cuba, and Obama has nothing to offer to Raul. It's a waste of time, we've been fine these 50 years while we've been ignoring Cuba. Ever had a problem? No. How about we find ourselves some real problems? Like... umm... leaving out 15 million uninsured Americans for example?
Debate Round No. 1
Mangani

Pro

"America can never make Cuba release any prisoners or change the way they run the country."

-Noone has stated that should be the goal or even a goal of a visit by the next US President. There are prisoners being held by the US in contempt of the wishes of dozens of other nations, but that doesn't stop anyone from having discussions with our leaders.

"Last time we did that Fidel Castro took over the island with 200 men."

-I didn't start this debate to give my opponent a history lesson on Cuba, but suffice it to say you are completely misinformed. The US ordered Batista out of Cuba, and recognized Castro as the new leader before he even got the memo...

"Because all the Cubans who he was supposed to "fight", joined him as he went along taking over Cuba."

-Castro was losing, but ok...

"Because 49 years ago, they were all sick of having America telling Cuba what to do."

-That's not exactly how things went down, but ok... you are not even giving a good description in laymens terms...

"Castro will never back down."

-Back down from what?

"They will give Obama the finger like they did to JFK and there's nothing we can do about it."

-First Castro now "they"? They who? They didn't give JFK the finger, JFK got shot! They were in communication through third parties before he got shot, and Castro was open to many of the preconditions set by JFK for an actual meeting...

"Obama thinks it'll look good going to Cuba but he doesn't know what he's talking about."

-How do you know this is his motive for wanting to engage US enemies on a diplomatic level? How doesn't he know what he's talking about? How is it that you do?

"Either Obama puts something on the table or they won't even let him step foot into Cuba, and Obama has nothing to offer to Raul."

-You really know nothing about Cuba. Raul Castro doesn't WANT to be President of Cuba. He WILL be as long as Fidel is alive, but his wishes are to resume diplomatic ties with the US. In the past he has been much more lenient towards progress than his brother, and has shown signs of possible cooperation with the US.

"It's a waste of time, we've been fine these 50 years while we've been ignoring Cuba."

-Now if you are disinterested in the status of the people of Cuba then why did you accept this debate? WE have been fine for 50 years, but Cubans have NOT. Not because of the Castro regime, but because of it's isolation by the US and it's allies.

"How about we find ourselves some real problems? Like... umm... leaving out 15 million uninsured Americans for example?"

-That's a funny suggestion. So you're for universal healthcare? Who to learn from better than Castro?

You really presented no argument against why Obama should visit Cuba. I don't know why you chose to waste both of our time, but let me know now if you aren't going to debate this topic...
blond_guy

Con

I gave you a reason why Obama shouldn't go. Because it would be a waste of time. What do you expect he will achieve in going to Cuba? However, you chose to forget I said that and go giving false information to contradict some of what I said.

Here are some examples:

<>

The U.S. wanted Batista to stay in. Ordered Batista out? What do you think, that America is this huge ruler of the world that whatever America decides everyone obeys? It was clear that Castro was gonna be the leader and the U.S. had no choice but to recognize him as the leader. So once Batista was so obviously losing, they pretended to accept Fidel when they really didn't. Proof: Bay of Pigs invasion.

<>

From anything! Either Obama has something for him, that he wants, or there's no negotiation period!

<>

Fidel wanted to launch missiles at us knowing that Cuba would be annihilated if he did such. The only reason why Castro agreed to some preconditions set by JFK was because mommy (the Soviet Union) said so.

<>

You can always play the "you're ignorant card", but just so you know I am Cuban, my grandfather is a professor in political science, previously ambassador of Cuba to Belgium and Japan, and previously an assistant to Fidel Castro. At least I know where I'm getting my facts from and according to him, you are the one that has no idea of Cuban-American relations. Raul Castro doesn't want to even speak to the U.S.. His brother is still the decider, still working in the Communist Party and he's still loved by many Cubans and he's one of the only true Cuban heroes. And what has he been saying to the people all his life? "Americans are scum!" You still haven't told me what Obama has to offer to Raul or Fidel Castro. He has nothing, and neither Castro will be ok with nothing whatsoever on the table.

<>

1st of all, why is it that I have to be interested in the status of the people of Cuba to take this debate? It's a bad idea to negotiate with those who want the worst for us. Or with a man that wanted to launch missiles at Florida as soon as he got the chance.

<>

This does not pertain to the debate, but if there's one thing Cuba has that we don't is better Health Care.

So I'll be looking forward to seeing what you expect to get from a meeting with Obama and one of the Castros. Because I expect nothing, except maybe another dead president in American history. Which makes me wonder if Castro could actually have killed Kennedy after that stupid bay of pigs invasion and all the attempts on Fidel's life by the C.I.A.
Debate Round No. 2
Mangani

Pro

Blond Guy, I apologize I don't have time to post a well thought out argument, but I will try a quick response to some points. I am in the process of moving, but the next round I should have more time.

"I gave you a reason why Obama shouldn't go. Because it would be a waste of time."

-That's not a reason, that's an opinion. No diplomatic effort is ever viewed as a waste of time by diplomats, rather by cynics. You can be cynical, but cynicism has never done anything for this country.

"What do you expect he will achieve in going to Cuba?"

-There are a multitude of things that can be accomplished with a visit to Cuba. Have you ever visited Cuba? I work in healthcare, and so every year there are various conventions attended by biomedical engineers (one which I am scheduled to be a translator for a keynote speaker for this year), doctors, educators, etc. At these meetings every year hundreds if not thousands of issues are resolved wether they do it for us, or us for them. You never know until you have a diplomatic experience, which I doubt any 14 year old has (not attacking your age, just that you have not had that experience).

"However, you chose to forget I said that and go giving false information to contradict some of what I said."

-I ignored your cynical argument because it is not a valid argument. This is not 1959, this is not JFK, we are not in the middle of a Cold War with a Communist superpower, and this is not Fidel Castro. Your cynical argument is based on all those parameters which in this case do not apply.

"The U.S. wanted Batista to stay in."

-They did at first, but eventually relinquished support for him. They informed him he no longer had US support and should leave the island in order to prevent an uprising which the CIA was predicting. This is not the premise of my argument, and I will not continue discussing history with you. It is not that relevant to my premise.

"What do you think, that America is this huge ruler of the world that whatever America decides everyone obeys?"

-Yes.

"It was clear that Castro was gonna be the leader and the U.S. had no choice but to recognize him as the leader."

-Castro never expressed desire to rule Cuba, rather to replace a corrupt dictator with an elected President. He had no political ambitions, and was thrown into power by the vaccuum created with the abrupt departure of Batista and recognition by the US of Castro as the leader.

"So once Batista was so obviously losing, they pretended to accept Fidel when they really didn't. Proof: Bay of Pigs invasion."

-The US pretty much caused Batista to lose by imposing an arms embargo in 1958. In fact, the 26th of July columns (Castro's forces) were constantly supplied with ammunition, ordnance, and certain specialized communications equipment, by air and sea, from various locations in Florida and Louisiana. The bulk of the ordinary military stores were drawn from the armories of the Alabama National Guard, which served as the 'augmentation' for the para-military operations conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency in Latin America. Towards the final stages of the conflict, limited numbers of aircraft and armored vehicles were supplied to the insurgents directly from the U.S. Naval Station at Guant´┐Żnamo Bay, so that the handful of early, cast-hull M4A3 Shermans (equipped with the low-velocity 75mm gun) of the Cuban Army found themselves facing 'Easy Eights' (M4 Shermans with upgraded armor, high-velocity 76mm guns, and HVSS) 'issued' from U.S. Army National Guard and Reserve stores.

"Fidel wanted to launch missiles at us knowing that Cuba would be annihilated if he did such."

-Castro never threatened to launch missiles. The missiles did not belong to Cuba, and were not under the control of the Cuban millitary. The Soviets intended to use Cuba as a "mutual annihalation" deterrent just as the US used Alaska, South Korea, and European locations to threaten the USSR with the constant threat of nuclear attack. It was a legitimate act of sovereignty by Cuba to allow the Soviets (their allies) to place missiles on their land the same as US allies did, and still do today.

"The only reason why Castro agreed to some preconditions set by JFK was because mommy (the Soviet Union) said so."

-Castro agreed because his relationship with Kruschev was faltering. He did not wish to continue his relationship with Russia, but China was an effective diplomat between the two. Castro was seeking alternatives to this relatinship, and so agreed to meet with JFK before he was assassinated.

"You can always play the "you're ignorant card", but just so you know I am Cuban, my grandfather is a professor in political science, previously ambassador of Cuba to Belgium and Japan, and previously an assistant to Fidel Castro."

-If knowledge was hereditary then you'd have a point... however this debate is not between myself and your grandfather, otherwise I am sure he would have much more detailed insights as to the character of Raul Castro. Being a student of political science, the Cuban Revolution, revolutionary and Nationalist movements, insurgent groups and freedom fighters myself, I can better discuss the character of Fidel Castro's little brother. From your comments I can tell you have been indoctrinated, but you haven't read many (if any) books on the subject. I have read books even from anti-Castro sources who claim Raul would be much more open to negotiations with the US than his older brother.

"At least I know where I'm getting my facts from and according to him, you are the one that has no idea of Cuban-American relations."

-According to my grandfather you don't know what you're talking about either. Unfortunately the argument is moot if I have no basis, or detailed rebuttal to any of your points, right?

"So I'll be looking forward to seeing what you expect to get from a meeting with Obama and one of the Castros."

-It is not politically savvy to meet with the leader of another nation with expectations. The only expectation should be to listen to each other's concerns. That is a start, and that is the basis of diplomacy. Obama has stated he would set humanitarian preconditions- which if met are a clear sign of Raul Castro's openness to such a meeting. However, complete and utter refusal to meet with him under any condition is just ridiculous, and not the sign of good leadership.
blond_guy

Con

"That's not a reason, that's an opinion."

Almost all reasons are opinions

"Have you ever visited Cuba?"

Yes, I have.

"You never know until you have a diplomatic experience, which I doubt any 14 year old has (not attacking your age, just that you have not had that experience)."

You actually are attacking my age.
There are reasons why they are sending you to Cuba and not the president. The president has better things to do. What is there for the president to do in Cuba that anybody else can't? Only one thing, and that is getting shot.

"They did at first, but eventually relinquished support for him. They informed him he no longer had US support and should leave the island in order to prevent an uprising which the CIA was predicting. This is not the premise of my argument, and I will not continue discussing history with you. It is not that relevant to my premise."

How can you not speak of history when mentioning Cuba? It's all about history. It's because of history that Castro hates our guts. The U.S. never stopped supporting Batista, are you saying they wanted to prevent an uprising predicted by the C.I.A. and then in 1959 in the bay of pigs they incite one themselves?

<<"What do you think, that America is this huge ruler of the world that whatever America decides everyone obeys?"

-Yes.>>

Wow, you got it real messed up. America has no say in anything anymore. And even if we did, nobody listens to us. Fidel Castro was gonna launch missiles at us if it wasn't for the Soviet Union's intervention. America isn't even a superpower anymore, America's weak.

"Castro never expressed desire to rule Cuba, rather to replace a corrupt dictator with an elected President. He had no political ambitions, and was thrown into power by the vaccuum created with the abrupt departure of Batista and recognition by the US of Castro as the leader."

So you're saying the U.S. forced him to be the leader? This is absurd.

"Castro never threatened to launch missiles. The missiles did not belong to Cuba, and were not under the control of the Cuban millitary."

That's a joke. Castro specifically said to Khrushchev that they should just launch the missiles, he was crazy and he didn't care what collateral damage he would take from such an attack.

"Castro was seeking alternatives to this relatinship, and so agreed to meet with JFK before he was assassinated."

Oh yeah! You're right, Castro said that in Spanish in a speech he made in Havana around that time: "Esos hijos de puta" You can see the love for JFK right there.

"If knowledge was hereditary then you'd have a point..."

When you quoted me you left out the part that said that my grandfather read your argument and specifically said you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure you know more than I do, but some of your information is faulty while all the information I provide, I make sure is supported by true facts.

"It is not politically savvy to meet with the leader of another nation with expectations."

I think that if the president is going to waste his time on a trip to Cuba, he should have at least a goal. He has no goal. There's nothing to be discussed between Obama and Castro. A good step would be to end the embargo, which was a terrible idea from the start, but Obama doesn't even want to do that. He said he did and then he backed out right away. So I guess we should keep things the way they are until another Cuban stages a coup, which is not gonna happen because they are pretty much satisfied with what they've got (Fidel Castro).
Debate Round No. 3
Mangani

Pro

I see you've insisted on turning this debate into a history lesson. Either way, I have brought up points as to why the next President of the US SHOULD meet with the next President of Cuba. It was supposed to be your position that he shouldn't, but you never presented any arguments against it. Either way I will address the historical points you are trying to make...

"You actually are attacking my age."

-Attacking your age would be saying because you were 14 you couldn't understand. What I said was that because you are 14 you couldn't have possibly had this kind of diplomatic experience. That's no different than saying you can't possibly legally purchase alcohol in the US because you're 14.

"The president has better things to do."

-One of the greatest functions of a President is diplomacy.

"It's because of history that Castro hates our guts."

-Castro doesn't "hate our guts". Castro disagrees with US involvement in Cuban affairs, and in the affairs of other nations. It is his disagreement, and those of the US with his own policies that has created this animosity.

"The U.S. never stopped supporting Batista, are you saying they wanted to prevent an uprising predicted by the C.I.A. and then in 1959 in the bay of pigs they incite one themselves?"

-I posted historically accurate information and you are trying to rebutt it without addressing it. Are you saying what I posted is inaccurate? Did the US not impose an arms embargo on Batista? Did the US not ship weapons to Castro's forces?

"Wow, you got it real messed up. America has no say in anything anymore..."

-I don't know what newspapers you read, but you need to switch up. "America" may not have a say, but the US government not only has a say, but imposes it's will unilaterally. Need I point out Iraq???

"And even if we did, nobody listens to us."

-So the UN isn't checking on Iran because the US wants them to? Pervez Musharraf didn't relinquish his post as General because the US advised him to? India and Pakistan aren't friends because the US wants them to be? China isn't investigating it's companies and rewriting manufacturing policies because the US placed bans on Chinese imports? I could go on, but you are either completely misinformed or just full of it...

"Fidel Castro was gonna launch missiles at us if it wasn't for the Soviet Union's intervention."

-Again, the missiles did not belong to Cuba, they were not under Cuban control, they were not handled by the Cuban millitary, and the Cubans had no say in when, where, or how the missiles would be used. The USSR was a superpower at the time, and completely subsidized Cuba (besides the tons of sugar they bought annually).

"America isn't even a superpower anymore, America's weak."

-The US is not only "a" superpower, it is THE superpower. There is no country with the budget, millitary, technology, and influence to do what the US government does on a daily basis- good or bad.

"So you're saying the U.S. forced him to be the leader? This is absurd."

-That's not what I said. The US created a power vaccuum and recognized him as the leader when his intentions were different. He never expected to beat Batista, rather he wanted him to concede to national elections. The US aided Castro, and assumed he would want command once his forces won, but they did not anticipate that he was so anti-foreign involvement. They have done it before- Hussein, The Shah of Iran, Suharto, Noriega, Mobutu... get my point?

"Castro specifically said to Khrushchev that they should just launch the missiles, he was crazy and he didn't care what collateral damage he would take from such an attack."

-Can you cite this request? Kruschev used Castro. Kruschev was in fear of losing the Cold War and was trying any drastic move. He knew moving the missiles to Cuba would be seen as a sign of agression and figured it would give him some leverage. What he failed to realize was the severity with which the US would react.

"I'm sure you know more than I do, but some of your information is faulty while all the information I provide, I make sure is supported by true facts."

-Unfortunately you haven't cited any facts- you have only cited opinions. You ignore the facts I cite and just blow them off with your personal opinion toward the facts but in doing so you don't even provide an alternative scenario that would support a different set of facts.

"I think that if the president is going to waste his time on a trip to Cuba, he should have at least a goal."

-Having a goal and having expectations are not the same thing. You can set goals, but you can't set expectations. It makes no sense because you can't predict how another person will react under any situation. If meeting for only the purpose of meeting goals and/or expectations were a predeterminant factor in whether or not to meet with leaders, then why do they still meet for Middle Eastern peace? Even if you don't meet expectations, you can fulfill some goals.

"There's nothing to be discussed between Obama and Castro."

-You are setting yourself up for the contradiction...

"A good step would be to end the embargo, which was a terrible idea from the start, but Obama doesn't even want to do that."

-Aaand there it is. Are you saying there is nothing a US President could want from Castro? Are you saying Castro would completely ignore the possibility of ending the embargo? If you were an indicator of what to expect from US Ambassadors, we would still be enemies with half the world. Nothing has ever been accomplished without diplomacy, and the only things that cannot be accomplished through diplomacy are those which are never discussed.

"So I guess we should keep things the way they are until another Cuban stages a coup, which is not gonna happen because they are pretty much satisfied with what they've got (Fidel Castro)."

-Fidel Castro is no longer the President of Cuba, and regime change does not have to be a goal of a meeting. That is ridiculous. You must take baby steps. The best thing to do is to discuss the easiest goals to accomplish. Remaining stagnant on either side does nothing for the Cuban people.
blond_guy

Con

"Are you saying Castro would completely ignore the possibility of ending the embargo?"

No, I'm saying Castro doesn't care about the embargo because it is not hurting him as much as it is hurting the people. It's actually helping him now because he can tell Cubans once again that it's all America's fault.
There's nothing to expect from a visit to Cuba from the President.
Obama's idea of going to Cuba and fixing 50 years of hostility is nothing but a pipe dream.

There are no new arguments posted by you for me to reply to so I'll leave it at that. Obama going to Cuba is simply 100% useless.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
Kels and Mangani, you BOTH take your "internet persona" too seriously. CHill out and it doesn't matter if anyone points out the obama point. It's not exactly a seller for either side since both sides did it and you're not "protecting the integrity of the debate".
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Kels, I am not upset about anything. You take your internet persona way too seriously. I didn't want you to compromise the integrity of a debate between two people. I didn't ask you to stop commenting because of some rule, rather out of courtesy. Regardless of how you feel about whether or not Obama will be the next President it is completely irrelevant to this debate because Blond Guy and I obviously both have the logical understanding- not that any fool but you wouldn't- that this is a hypothetical situation until Jan. of next year when the next President IS sworn in...
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Actually I didn't say mop the floor if you want to get technical and actually some polls show Obama leading McCain , others show McCain leading Obama and some show them neck and neck ..so you will be in for awakening when Obama doesn't breeze right in :)
Mangani , As long as my COMMENTS aren't inappropriate I can post what I would like in my comments. You are just upset that I pointed out you are wrong in assuming Obama will definately be the President of the US. I know what Obama said , I am arguing that you are wrong saying he will be the next President of the US ..you do not know that and until November when you see if he is elected or not ..he can not be referred to as the next President if you want to win a debate.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
HAHAH, Kels you make me laugh. Stop pretending like you don't know that Obama is basically the president already. Nothing you can do about it. You said McCain will "mop the floor" with either candidate, Hillary or Barack, but the polls don't show it. Unfortunately, Obama will be president, deal with it.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Kels, that is irrelevant. Let my opponnent worry about that. The comments section is not here for you to try to debate while the debate is going on... especially about things that are irrelevant to the premise like what you're pointing out. If you know anything about recent events you would know why we are both referring to Obama as the candidate most likely to be the President who WOULD visit Raul Castro... if he would have never said he would we wouldn't be having this debate.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
You are referring to Obama throughout the whole debate. You are assuming Obama will be the next President. The comment section is here for a reason.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Kels, my premise is that regardless of who is the next or current President there is no diplomatic reason, no political reason, no rational reason why the President of the US should not engage in talks with the President of Cuba (or the next Pres. of the US with the next Pres. of Cuba). Please don't try to debate me in the comments section, especially while we're still debating. If you wish to, challenge me to your own debate.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Mangani , You are forgetting something. Obama is not the President. You keep saying why shouldn't the president and why shouldn't the president go and right there your argument makes no sense. Whether or not the President goes is really a topic of why shouldn't Bush go. Whether or not the next president should go is really rather a question of why shouldn't Hilary, Obama, McCain , and I suppose I must include Paul and Huckabee still as they have not dropped out of the race.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Blond Guy, are you aware of how many anti-Castro Cubans in Florida want an end to the embargo? Do you have any idea how many would want the President to meet with him? There are many... the only ones you hear about are the Senators who are Republicans. Republicans don't want to talk to anyone because they can't communicate unless they are hunting deer or tapping each other under the bathroom stall at the airport!
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
You know what? I'll just take your debate.
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Manganiblond_guyTied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Manganiblond_guyTied
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