The Instigator
Dazed
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
LightC
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points

The united states should declare war on Iran

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Dazed
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,904 times Debate No: 6274
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Dazed

Con

1. "War should be the politics of last resort and when we go to war we should have the understanding and support of our people."- Colin powell. That quote shows a big part of my position, the US people would not stand behind another war and that is enough of a reason not to do it.

2. Iran is a militarial nation. They have as of 6 months ago a 350,000 man standing army. They are not a bunch of farmers with pitchforks over there. Iraq had no where near this man power when we invaded. This will not be an easy war and there is no real reason to do it this leads me to my next point....

3. We don't have the troops or the money to fight this war! We wanted to up the number of troops in Iraq from 160,000 to 180,000 and several members of congress proved that just by increaseing the number of soliders by 20,000 we would no longer be able to defend ourselves. Think about how many troops it would take to start another war!
LightC

Pro

I'll go NC, then AC

Overview Arguments:

1. (As will be evident in my AC) My opponent's case has to do with automatically going to war, and she ignores the wording of the resolution which states "should"
2. She ignores the evaluative term "declare"

1. "War should be the politics of last resort and when we go to war we should have the understanding and support of our people."- Colin powell. That quote shows a big part of my position, the US people would not stand behind another war and that is enough of a reason not to do it.

--> Ok this argument can be broken down into the following premises (and then I'll mark down a response):

a. Last Resort --> The resolution never specifies when we would declare war, therefore it could be the last resort.

b. Popular Support --> This is the logical fallacy known as an ad populum fallacy. I.e. just because the majority agree or disagree with something does not make it automatically right or wrong. For example, the majority of people in ancient times believed execution by stoning was right, but it obviously is not. Also, the majority of people thought slavery was right.

2. Iran is a militarial nation. They have as of 6 months ago a 350,000 man standing army. They are not a bunch of farmers with pitchforks over there. Iraq had no where near this man power when we invaded. This will not be an easy war and there is no real reason to do it

--> I have 4 responses:

First, the size of an army does =/= the strength of that military. For example a corp of Marines could easily destroy an ancient Greek army, even if numbers were on the Greek side.

Second, Iran does not have the greatest military technology (compared to the US)

Third, war is not simply man vs. man. It is bomb blows up men and buildings. Iran would be totally defenseless if the US launched an air-offensive and navy-offensive.

Fourth, if you extend my oppponents logic it comes to the conclusion that that Britain should not have fought Naxi Germany because they had a bigger army.

3. We don't have the troops or the money to fight this war! We wanted to up the number of troops in Iraq from 160,000 to 180,000 and several members of congress proved that just by increaseing the number of soliders by 20,000 we would no longer be able to defend ourselves. Think about how many troops it would take to start another war!

I have 3 responses:

First, troops are not an issue. Extend my above reasoning.

Second, this point is comparing apples to oranges. If the US wanted to go into Iran, they would use a pinch method. I.e. use the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan to pinch in Iran, and come in from both sides.

Third, money is not really an issue.

[AC]

I affirm: The united states should declare war on Iran

For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations:

1. Linguistic Analysis: The word should has 3 impacts:

a. It is a possibility not a categorical.
b. It implies some type of positive impact.
c. It changes the burden of proof from a categorical burden to an "on balance" burden for the affirmative. The negative still needs to disprove on a categorical basis however.

2. Word "declare" simply means to state. It does not mean military action is definite. We are simply debating the declaration of war.

Contention I: Nuclear Weapon Proliferation

Simply enough, we need to declare war on Iran to stop nuclear weapon proliferation. To do so does not require the advancement of troops. All that is needed is to knock out the generators/plants. To do this, we need air support and navy support and a certain amount of missiles. Both of these could launch medium ranged missiles to destroy the plants.

For this reason you can affirm.
Debate Round No. 1
Dazed

Con

I will go straight down my opponents arguments and then on to further my own case.

1. The word should is used to soften a direct statement as defined on Merriam Webster's online dictionary, it does not meant that we will not automatically go to war. Also declare means to formally state an intention. When we formally declare that we are going to go to war with Iran the fact of the matter is that they will not sit on their butts until we decide that we want to do something. Iran is a militarial nation and they will not hesitate to launch the first strike should we give them reason to. They have been trying to bait the united states since the very beggining by spouting off at the mouth and formally stating things about the destruction of the united states.

2. Now I would like to address my opponents attack on my quote that I use to open my case. The biggest part of that quote is that we should have the understanding and support of our people. United states citizens were all guns blazing when we first declared war on Iraq but the fact of the matter is that about after six months or so the war began to drastically loose support. US citizens don't support the war that we are in now... they won't support the United states going to war with another middle eastern country. That is the point that was being proved with that quote. As far as his attack on last resort as I stated in my last paragraph Iran is trying to bait the US they will not make the first move. While popular support may not always be right you have to have it to declare war on another nation and to endanger the lives of all of your constituents because if the US declares war on Iran who knows if the fighting will only be contained to the middle east like it was with Iraq.

3. to contend his attack on Iran being a militarial nation: The size and training of an army does have an effect on what kind of war will be fought and how long that war will last. Iran may not be on the cutting edge of military technology but their biggest friend, Russia is. If we declare war on Iran Russia will most defiantly side with Iran, those intentions were made very clear by Vladimir Putin. As for my opponents third point under this attack when he talks about war not being man on man... I agree with this it is not man on man anymore. it would be better if it was, then the amount of innocent lives lost would be minimal. If we declare war on Iran it would mean the killing of innocent women and children. We cannot simply go into another country and start dropping bombs, there are innocent people there that we must account for. And just for the record Britain obviously should have gone to war with the Nazi's because: 1. they had the support of the Russian Army, 2. Nazi Germany was committing genocide and bringing horror to the world around it whereas Iran has done nothing directly to the United States or anything close to what the Nazi's were doing in Germany.

4. As for his attack about troops they are an issue we need to bring them home because already as it it we are leaving our troops overseas for longer periods of time and not giving them enough time at home. We have had a sharp increase in the number of troops coming home with mental problems in the last three years. Not to mention that we cannot just withdraw our troops out of Iraq as my opponent is suggesting. It has been proposed by many people Democrats and Republicans alike and they all agree that it will take time and patience so that we do it right. Money is and issue. Everything is about money.. it makes the world go round and it fuels the US. Right now the US economy is in a really bad position on almost everything an dthe fact of the matter is that we don't have the money to fund another war without pushing ourselves deeper into debt and more towards depression.

5. as for his linguistic analysis:
A. I have already attacked the would should, it does not mean an positive impact, it does not mean possibility.

If you accept the Affirmation's argument about an "on balance" burden of proof.. on balance means to take everything, absolutely everything into consideration. the con has offered far more reasons with far more further reached impacts.

I have already attacked the world declared.

6. As for his contention one about nuclear proliferation, there are other ways of going about this such as promoting the CTBT. Dropping bombs will not stop nuclear proliferation in Iran, that would be like eating cheeseburgers everyday and expecting to loose weight.

My case:
The US people would not support it and we need their support to go to war. That is a fact and it is evident in the war in Iraq they just want our troops home now.

we don't have the money or the troops needed for this war. Troops will be needed no matter what you cannot phone in a long distance war it just does not work.

Iran is a militarial nation which means that the loss of life will be much greater than just going against a nation that is a bunch of farmers with pitchforks.
Russia will be in the mix and that could very well lead to world war three and that is something that we most defiantly do not want.
Iran has offered the united states peace talks and diplomatic solutions that we have chosen to ignore. We should use more diplomatic options before resorting to declaring war.

There for I ask you to please vote in negation of the resolution before you today.
LightC

Pro

Ok, I'll go from countering the NC defense, then to mitigating NC offense.

"should is used to soften a direct statement"

--> Not necessarily. For example, I should eat my vegetables, however will I 100% do so? Obviously not, ergo linking to my possibility observation.

"Declare means to formally state an intention. When we formally declare that we are going to go to war with Iran the fact of the matter is that they will not sit on their butts until we decide that we want to do something. Iran is a militarial nation and they will not hesitate to launch the first strike should we give them reason to."

--> I have two responses:

First, I can declare that I'm going to take out the garbage, but will I? Again, another definition that is not categorical.

Second, Iran does not have the means at the moment to launch a strike agaisnt the US. That is why they pay terrorists to do their work. Furthermore, they will be able to launch an attack if they create a fully functioning nuclear weapon. This links directly to the AC case. We cannot permit Iran from archiving that state of power.

"2. Now I would like to address my opponents attack on my quote that I use to open my case. The biggest part of that quote is that we should have the understanding and support of our people. United states citizens were all guns blazing when we first declared war on Iraq but the fact of the matter is that about after six months or so the war began to drastically loose support."

--> She did not respond to any of my attacks (attack "a" and attack "b"). Extend them for the debate.

"3. to contend his attack on Iran being a militarial nation: The size and training of an army does have an effect on what kind of war will be fought and how long that war will last. Iran may not be on the cutting edge of military technology but their biggest friend, Russia is. If we declare war on Iran Russia will most defiantly side with Iran, those intentions were made very clear by Vladimir Putin. As for my opponents third point under this attack when he talks about war not being man on man... I agree with this it is not man on man anymore. it would be better if it was, then the amount of innocent lives lost would be minimal"

I have 2 responses:

First, my opponent concedes my attack #1 and #2

Second, contends that Russia would help them. I argue this to be false on the following reasons:

a. Past history: Russia said they would help Iraq if we invaded. They did not.
b. Russia would never step into a conflict with us. We are their biggest oil market, and if they help Iran we would cut buying Russian oil.
c. Russia joining would make the EU join the fight and side with us. Russia does not want that.

Third, as I stated before Iran would crumble from an air and naval assault.

"4. As for his attack about troops they are an issue we need to bring them home because already as it it we are leaving our troops overseas for longer periods of time and not giving them enough time at home. We have had a sharp increase in the number of troops coming home with mental problems in the last three years. Not to mention that we cannot just withdraw our troops out of Iraq as my opponent is suggesting. It has been proposed by many people Democrats and Republicans alike and they all agree that it will take time and patience so that we do it right."

--> I have 2 responses:

First, she ignores my above logic. I.e. troops would be necessary to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Second, for premise #1 we would not need to increase troop levels.

"I have already attacked the would should, it does not mean an positive impact, it does not mean possibility"

--> I have 2 responses:

First, I have already shown the possibility part. I.e. I should eat vegetables, but that doesn't mean I am going to.

Second, I should eat my vegetables, because I will be healthier. I.e. it has a positive impact. Thus, it implies a positive impact.

"If you accept the Affirmation's argument about an "on balance" burden of proof.. on balance means to take everything, absolutely everything into consideration. the con has offered far more reasons with far more further
reached impacts."

--> I have two responses:

First, on balance simply means about 50%. So 51% or more.

Second, the negative has the categorical burden on the fact of the word should. I, the affirmative, has the on balance burden of proof. She did respond to this, thus she has conceded this burden. She must prove the resolution 100% true.

"As for his contention one about nuclear proliferation, there are other ways of going about this such as promoting the CTBT. Dropping bombs will not stop nuclear proliferation in Iran, that would be like eating cheeseburgers everyday and expecting to loose weight."

--> This offense presented by the negative is completely nonsensical for the following reasons:

First, the CTBT is restricted by international precedence. And one of the international precedents is "Respect of International Sovereignty." Therefore, the UN is paralyzed by their own laws. Basically since international law is subordinate to it;s own ends, it has no solvency.

Second, following from my premise 1, it is necessary for the US to take charge because no one else can do it for us.

Third, the only tried and true way of ending aggression and nuclear proliferation is to sue hard methods, i.e. military force or the threat of military force. Soft methods have no solvent impacts.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 2
Dazed

Con

1. Alright, the first thing that I would like to do is clarify if my opponant wants to counter my definitions the answer is simple: Framer's intent. I wrote the resolution and those are the definfitions that I used. It may seem a little self absorbed but it's a valid argument.

2. As for my opponat saying that to decalre does not mean it will actually happen, what do you think happens when we declare war on a nation. They don't just sit there and stare at us, they fight back. As for his argument that Iran pays terrorists to launch attacks there is no direct evidence of this not to mention that does not mean that they don't have the means to launch an attack. They have air missle defense systems given to them by Russia as well as first strike technology. Iran is a militarial nation as I have stated time and time again. The fact of the matter is that we can use diplomatic solutions to prevent Iran from nuclear proliferation as I have already states. Iran has extended it's hand atleast twice that I have evidence of and we have simply ignored it. Nuclear proliferation is not a reason to go to war,and believe me if we declare war on Iran we will go to war with Iran.

3. As for my opponant saying that i left his attacks open i cannot find the attacks that I left open. I went streight down his attacks and his case. It's all right there just take a look, even if it was just a few sentences.

4. In my argument i never said anything about the size of the army not equaling how strong it is militarialy. Not to mention just because a nation is not on the cutting edge of technology does not mean that they cannot launch an attack against us. As for my argument i was saying that war is not all man on man anymore that's just a fact I cannot sit here a say that it is. We no longer meet hand and hand on a battlefeild, however it will eventually come down to gurilla war tactics. We cannot phone in a war it doesn't work that way. That was my point. I do not agree with my oponant that we will not have to go into Iraq, simply striking their air force bases and military bases is not the extent of what will happen. We will send troops into Iran if we go to war with Iran and as stated if we declare war on Iran we will fight in Iran.

i would like to respond to the rest of his argument regarding Russia. Russia would not stop in with Iraq because they had no grounds to. The united States gets most of it's oil from OPEC and Saudi Arabia not Russia. We buy about 1% of the oil that we use from Russia. We are not their biggest buyer, not to mention their economy really doesn't rely on oil so why would they care. Now i would like to move onto his next argument: Russia joining would make the EU join on our side, that makes no sense the EU does not support the United States anyway not to mention that they would want to say out of it as not to start world war three.

5. i do not ignore his logic, i just do not agree with his logic and as i have already stated there are diplomatic solutions such as the CTBT to stop nuclear proliferation. Troops would not be nessesary, war would not be nessesary to stop Iran from gaining nuclear proliferation. Not to mention that we would need a troop increase and we don't even want the troops fighting that are fighting right now. We want all of our troops safe and sound. Right now we are streched to the max and it is effecting the troops themselves sending then back will all kinds of mental problems and side effects from the war. Troops are huge issue in this debate; they would be needed and we just don't have them.

on balance means to take everything into consideration as defined by Merriam Webster's online dictionary and several other accedeted sources. i am a public forum debater... last month these two words and their meaning were debated to death. i know what it means and it means to take everything into consideration.

i have proven this resolution 100% false, i have given so many reasons not to go to war with Iran as opposed to his one, about nuclear proliferation, which i have discreditied by the way.

6. the fact of the matter is that is has already been laid down on the table that if the united states signs and follows the CTBT that Iran will as well that is my point and it still stands valid. The CTBT does not violate national sovereignty so how does this really apply to anything that we are talking about right now. The united nations has the authority to make sure that all parties abide by this but most of all this would mainly be an agreement between Iran and the United States safeguards can be built in.

7. the united states should not take charge it is when we take charge and go in guns blazing that the rest of the world diagrees with us and we loose soft power with other nations and therefore damaging our international standard this had proven true time and time again. We are no longer the leading superpower in the world because of the loss of this soft power due to wanting things our way and ignoring the rest of the world. Therefore his premis does not stand because i have facts and examples to back my argument and he has none. HARD METHODS ARE NOT THE WAY TO GO WHEN TRYING TO PREVENT NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION! This only makes things worse and there are many past examples to look to.

i have proven without a doubt that the united states should not declare war on Iran so i ask you please to ignore my opponants petty attacks on the wording of the resolution and look at framers intent and my argumentation and vote this resolution down. Please vote in negation of the resolution before you. Thank you!
LightC

Pro

"1. Alright, the first thing that I would like to do is clarify if my opponent wants to counter my definitions the answer is simple: Framer's intent. I wrote the resolution and those are the definitions that I used. It may seem a little self absorbed but it's a valid argument."

--> I have 3 responses:

First, framer's intent is only valid when it is done within the framework of the case. She made it in a rebuttal, and is thus invalid.

Second, since she failed to provide definitions in her case, I, as the opponent, has the right to "fill the gap" so to speak.

Third, since these two above responses are valid, you must look to all my definitions.

"2. As for my opponat saying that to decalre does not mean it will actually happen, what do you think happens when we declare war on a nation. They don't just sit there and stare at us, they fight back. As for his argument that Iran pays terrorists to launch attacks there is no direct evidence of this not to mention that does not mean that they don't have the means to launch an attack. They have air missle defense systems given to them by Russia as well as first strike technology. Iran is a militarial nation as I have stated time and time again. The fact of the matter is that we can use diplomatic solutions to prevent Iran from nuclear proliferation as I have already states. Iran has extended it's hand atleast twice that I have evidence of and we have simply ignored it. Nuclear proliferation is not a reason to go to war,and believe me if we declare war on Iran we will go to war with Iran."

--> I have 3 responses:

First, she ignores my logic totally when it comes to the definition of declare, thus you can extend it.

Second, as I have stated Iran does not have the means to launch an attack against the US. They may have a large army but their air force is horrible. for example, refer to the 6 Days war with Israel vs. almost every Islamic Nation. Israel obliterated all of the Islamic Nations air-defenses and offenses (fighter planes) simultaneously, and in less then 1 hour.

Third, she offers no warrants has to why soft means/diplomatic means works.

"3. As for my opponant saying that i left his attacks open i cannot find the attacks that I left open. I went streight down his attacks and his case. It's all right there just take a look, even if it was just a few sentences."

--> Just look at her round 2, she dropped multiple arguments/responses.

"4. In my argument i never said anything about the size of the army not equaling how strong it is militarialy. Not to mention just because a nation is not on the cutting edge of technology does not mean that they cannot launch an attack against us. As for my argument i was saying that war is not all man on man anymore that's just a fact I cannot sit here a say that it is. We no longer meet hand and hand on a battlefeild, however it will eventually come down to gurilla war tactics. We cannot phone in a war it doesn't work that way. That was my point. I do not agree with my oponant that we will not have to go into Iraq, simply striking their air force bases and military bases is not the extent of what will happen. We will send troops into Iran if we go to war with Iran and as stated if we declare war on Iran we will fight in Iran."

--> I have 3 responses:

First, she indeed does talk about the numbers being strength. "Iran is a militarial nation. They have as of 6 months ago a 350,000 man standing army. They are not a bunch of farmers with pitchforks over there. Iraq had no where near this man power when we invaded." (Round 1/NC)

Second, they would not be able to launch a successful attack if they did not have the technology. That is just common sense. That is like saying I can hurt my friend by throwing a cotton ball at him.

Third, She misunderstands my case. I am arguing that the only reason to declare war is to disrupt any attempts to create nuclear weapons. Thus it is unnecessary to "invade."

"i would like to respond to the rest of his argument regarding Russia. Russia would not stop in with Iraq because they had no grounds to. The united States gets most of it's oil from OPEC and Saudi Arabia not Russia. We buy about 1% of the oil that we use from Russia. We are not their biggest buyer, not to mention their economy really doesn't rely on oil so why would they care. Now i would like to move onto his next argument: Russia joining would make the EU join on our side, that makes no sense the EU does not support the United States anyway not to mention that they would want to say out of it as not to start world war three."

-->I have 4 responses:

First, Russia had many business ventures in Iraq, thus they had grounds to step in, but they did not.

Second, I apologize, I meant we could be the largest potential market. My bad.

Third, yes, their economy is based on the oil and natural resource business. E.g. oil and coal.

Fourth, the EU has more alliances and treaties with the US, then Russia. Therefore, due to consentual agreements, they would have to step in. and Russia would not want that.

i do not ignore his logic, i just do not agree with his logic and as i have already stated there are diplomatic solutions such as the CTBT to stop nuclear proliferation. Troops would not be nessesary, war would not be nessesary to stop Iran from gaining nuclear proliferation. Not to mention that we would need a troop increase and we don't even want the troops fighting that are fighting right now. We want all of our troops safe and sound. Right now we are streched to the max and it is effecting the troops themselves sending then back will all kinds of mental problems and side effects from the war. Troops are huge issue in this debate; they would be needed and we just don't have them.

--> I have 2 responses:

First, she offers nothing to contradict my logic, and the CTBT example, as I have shown above is ineffective because it has no solvent mechanisms to enforce it's laws.

Second, hard force is necessary because it is the only thing that can actually do something. Just telling Iran "Stop making nuclear weapons....plz" does not cut it. It does nothing to stop top nuclear proliferation.

[Voting Issues]

1. My opponent said this in her last speech: "The CTBT does not violate national sovereignty so how does this really apply to anything that we are talking about right now." You can affirm right here. She has conceded that the CBTB has no authority to violate sovereignty and thus reduce nuclear proliferation. She has conceded the defeat of her only one solvent mechanism which she says cannot violate sovereignty.

2. Since she has no solvent mechanism you must look to the idea of hard force, as the only effective way to reduce nuclear proliferation. Thus you must look to the reasoning put forth in the AC.

3. She provides no inherent reason to reject the resolution, and all her attempts can be mitigated by my past offense.

For these reasons you can affirm.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by EugeneZ 8 years ago
EugeneZ
..my 2 cents

<Iran does not have the means at the moment to launch a strike against the US>
So – why to attack?: Or should we repeat history of the latest Iraq war:
2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org...
And as result we have:
Bush: "I Was Unprepared for War," "I'm Sorry" For The Economic Crisis
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
President Bush regrets his legacy as man who wanted war - Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

<Iran military equipment – maybe not so outdated:
Military and Technical Cooperation Pledged : Russia Renounces Ban On Arms Sales to Iran

http://www.iht.com...

< Russia would never step into a conflict with us. We are their biggest oil market, and if they help Iran we would cut buying Russian oil.>
It is not true: East Asia is
However, US can be..
Russian Oil and Gas Challenges
http://fpc.state.gov...
< Russia joining would make the EU join the fight and side with us. Russia does not want that.>
It is true – as part of NATO obligations....chain reaction...It is WWIII
=> that is why US do not need war!- >
Nobody needs War! Peace can bring more money and stability to nations then War..
Posted by EugeneZ 8 years ago
EugeneZ
"The united states should declare war on Iran"
When I read it - I had only 1 question- "Why?"

did you read it?:
"Declaration of war by the United States"
http://en.wikipedia.org...
---
Also Do not forget: "War has no winners"
----
You know how much money cost war and how much money US need to stabilize economy:
The war is not solution...
---------------------------
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
The USA can blow Iran to smithereens in no time, haven't you watched Military Channel ;D?

But really, just look at two examples: Iraq and China.

Iraq - In Desert Storm our APC's destroyed more Iraqi tanks than our own tanks. 2003 Invasion of Iraq was easy and fast (B2 bombers took out anti-air, the main force blew all the other's away). It's the guerllia warefare that we suck at (Marines are trained for big-scale wars, not the job special forces should be handling)

China - largest standing army, crap navy and air force.

I'd say the only competition USA would actually have in a total war is Britain (we'd probably still win).
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by EugeneZ 8 years ago
EugeneZ
DazedLightCTied
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 bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
DazedLightCTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
DazedLightCTied
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 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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
DazedLightCTied
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