The Instigator
DrAcula
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

The world would be better off if Germany had won WW1

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,143 times Debate No: 243
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (23)

 

DrAcula

Pro

Ah, the waking of a sleeping giant. The Zimmerman Note, for those of you that don't know, was what brought us into WWI. Had we not intercepted it, we would have most likely been attacked by Mexico, and possibly by Germany, or we would have to fight Germany in Europe when we would have figured out they sent the note.

What it basically said was that Germany proposed a plan to Mexico "help me help you." Because Mexico was so close, it would be easy for them to attack us, and they would want to, to gain back territories we took from them. It sounds bad right? Us losing in Man's Greatest Conflict? Not really though. Sure, we'd have to do some rebuilding, but ultimately, it would be better for us.

If we lost, we'd focus on rebuilding, and wouldn't produce an overzealous economy, thus avoiding the Great Depression. And, us losing, meant Germany came off better. Now, I urge you to remember, WW1 was not Germany's fault, it was because of an assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the leader of a small country. But though, when Serbian rebels went to war with Austria-Hungary, Alliance systems caused Germany, France, Russia, Italy, and Great Britain to enter the fray.

Of course, Germany needed help, and they sought to take down the US as well (because we were allies of their enemies). That's when they sent the Zimmerman Note. Well, since it was intercepted, we attacked first, and they eventually lost. While we tried to punish them fairly, our suggestions were voided by the Great Britain, France, and Italy, because they were the ones that were the most damaged by the war. Well, they made Germany pay.

Germany's downfall was the perfect opportunity for Adolf Hitler to come to power. Ask yourself, had Germany still been a world power after winning the way, would they really want Hitler? No, for one, Kaiser Wilhelm would have chosen an heir, and two, he didn't offer anything but the chance to pay back the enemies that did them damage. Had Germany won; no enemies. No Hitler, no Holocaust.

Moving on to Russia; they bowed out when they collapsed from the Russian Revolution, and the Communist party was infuriated when they got punished and lost land when the Big Three had the power to control war repearations, which led to animosity toward the Allies.

This could possibly take care of the Cold War, as well, because WWII may not have happened, and who knows, there might not be anymore conflicts, because it wasn't a thirst for power from a big nation that sparked WW1, it was one gun shot in a small country.
Korezaan

Con

Thank you for creating this topic to debate on. I've always wanted to learn more about World War 1 (and WW2).

____________________________________

I negate.

Alright, so what I'm getting is that you're taking a utilitarian viewpoint that since the fall of Germany led to the rise of Hitler, and many things after that, we should have let Germany and the Central Powers win WW1.

I disagree on three reasons.

__________________

My first argument is the Military-Industrial complex.

1) So there was this thing called the Industrial Revolution. Most of Europe got more modernized technology and many improvements in the instruments of war. Due to patriotic pride in each of those countries, and due to their recent inventions like the machine gun, they went out to Asia and Africa and conquered those lands for economic reasons. European countries got more consumers, they got more natural resources, which fueled their economy and resulted in this snowball effect for nationalism. Now, some nobody comes up and assassinates Ferdinand, and the alliance stuff drags all of Europe into war.

2) Now, I don't know the exact things that happened in WW1, but I think that the Central Powers wouldn't have stopped at just taking over Serbia. They would have probably went on to take over Allied Powers, which was basically the rest of Europe.

IMPACT --- A concept called the Military-Industrial Complex, coined by Eisenhower in his farewell address, plays directly into this. With the flames of nationalism fanned by the 1800's-1914 imperialism, AND if we let Germany+Central Powers win, then the result would be not just them taking over Serbia and potentially Europe, but also the rest of the world. The already deadly MIC added to the people's power of nationalistic pride would have driven the Central Powers to continue until the controlled the rest of the world.

This by itself creates a WW2 that would have just as much if not more effect than our worlds' WW2, already outweighing, if not cancelling, out your argument that WW2 would have never happened.

__________________

My second argument is that letting the Central Powers win would not have necessarily prevented further atrocities.

A) Hitler was one of the best orators of all time. His skill and his speech were not fake, and he would have risen to power regardless of whether or not WW1 happened. Therefore, letting Germany+Central Powers win the 1st World War would not have necessarily prevented the second.

B) This would not have solved the Cold War. If the situation mentioned in my first argument didn't happen, then a Cold War between the Central Powers and the Allied Powers would have happened anyways, because the whole "secret alliance" stuff had been brought to light.

__________________

My final argument is that World War 2 happening was good.

The happening of World War 2 led to many good things. I'm not saying that the genocide of six million jews was a good thing, but that the result of such a horror led to the rest of humanity learning a lesson. When the Holocaust was first revealed to the world, almost everyone was thinking "How could this have possibly happened?". Nobody really cares about genocides happening in a jungle because they're 'undeveloped peoples', but this was in GERMANY. A MODERN COUNTRY. This led to, in my opinion, another sort of enlightenment to the human race.

This enlightenment was the moral enlightenment. People started questioning themselves more about what's right and what's wrong, what human nature is, how far we can go, and so on. Probably the best piece of literature in the past century, LORD OF THE FLIES, and the whole question of morality would not have been written about if the Holocaust and World War 2 hadn't happened.

If World War 2 hadn't happened, problems like these wouldn't have come to light. And problems can't be solved, can't be a lesson to all of humanity, unless a huge atrocity has happened. The Japanese-Americans would not have been put in similar concentration camps if WW2 hadn't happened, and racism today might have been only an African-American issue. We would not have developed the atomic bomb and there wouldn't be the question of using nukes, either.

There are so many problems that arose during WW2 and there have been even more movements to solve those moral imperatives afterwards. If WW2 never happened, then we would have even more problems in our society today.

__________________

Miscellaneous points I did not talk about above:

- Explain to me the Willhelm point. I don't get its significance.
- Nor the Russian Revolution.
- Nor your ending line, "it was one gun shot in a small country."
- The Great Depression was due to a stock market crash in 1929, not due to the end of WW1, which ended in 1918. According to my parents and a few of my past history teachers, WW1 was actually the reason why America came to power. While most of the other dominant world powers were off fighting their own war, we basically stayed back for most of it and grew a huge economy, because the Allied Powers were buying our stuff. World War 1 was actually a good thing for our economy, and your impact of the Great Depression has no link to WW1.

Again, thank you for creating this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
DrAcula

Pro

Thank you for replying.

I can see where you are coming from, and your point about nationalism is correct, but I feel that The central powers would have stopped, because they would have been content with being where they were, plus they would be respectful of they're own neighbors, IMO.

With the Hitler thing. He was a great orator, but Germany paying for pretty much everything was what opened up Adolf's big chance to shine. I don't believe he would have been elected, and if he had, he wouldn't have the absolute power he did in the real word.

The cold war still might have happened, but I don't believe it would be as dangerous as it was in real life, because Russia would probably be either happy with us, or have no anger with us at all.

And even if the Central Powers took over Europe, it still may be better than the age of terror we are in today. By Germany winning the world war, it would keep us from being the easy target we are today.

I also don't believe that The Central Powers would move on and take over Europe, because they would realize just how bad the war was on all fronts.
Korezaan

Con

For your first and last argument, I don't think they would have been respective of their own neighbors, as nationalism + imperialism + the military-industrial complex would've probably driven them to invade their neighboring countries.

You're not really giving a reason why Hitler wouldn't have shown in Germany's political arena anyways. Although it is true that it gave him his big chance, it does not mean that the window of oppurtunity was THE reason he got elected.

The Cold War probably WOULD have happened, and it would've been a lot worse, because the Allied Powers of WW1 and the Central Powers of WW2 would've been in the Cold War also. It would've been basically half the world powers against the other half, with plenty more people, instead of just US vs Russia.

"Age of Terror". Let me tell you about terror. Terror is an emotion. It isn't an enemy. Terrorism has been around since the beginning of mankind, it isn't a "recent problem" that arose today. Today it's suicide bombers, back then it was assassins and ninjas. Just because the Central Powers wins WW1 doesn't mean we wouldn't have the "Age of Terror" today.

All in all, you aren't getting very many impacts.
Debate Round No. 2
DrAcula

Pro

so says the person who believes in the zeitgeist movie. Not like I can change your opinion about anything.

Hitler might not even felt compelled to run for election because he wouldn't have been angry against a large group of people.

And yeah, we wouldn't constantly be a target for Islamic Fundamentalists that don't like our Christian ways.

You contradicted yourself when you talked about the Holocaust leading people to being better morally, because when a war of this scale would end, whoever won, would see the damage that imperialism caused, and would not want it to happen again. The only reason there was a second world war, was because Germany was angry at the Big 3.

I still don't believe the Cold War would have happened, because there was no need for it to happen, it stemmed from anger, again, at the Big 3.

WW1 was like a cliffhanger, because Germany was punished. Everything would have been resolved had they won.
Korezaan

Con

If you have any real arguments against ZeitGeist, I'd like to hear them.

Unless you can prove that WW1 led to Hitler's hate of the Jews, then i don't see why your point stands.

Alright, so all evidence right now points to 9/11 being a setup, and I can go on that tangent if you want. The only other place (outside of London, which also has all evidence pointing towards SETUP) there are Islamic Fundamentalists are in their homeland. And umm, I think they're justified in killing our troops, because we aren't supposed to be over there in the first place. If we're over there marching around with guns, I think they have a right to self defense.

I said that the after-effects of WW2 led to a better society; it led to the illumination of many social problems from racism to morality. I do not see the contradiction. Germany attacked Poland first and not Britain or someone else. Italy attacked parts of Africa first, and if I am correct with my history and my interpretation of it, WW2 did not begin due to Germany's hate of the Big 3.

The Cold War in the your alternate world would have been the Central Powers versus the Allied Powers. Refer to my previous post.

Little to nothing would have resolved if Germany had won. You are still not giving any valid or sound reasoning for why the rest of the things that came after WW1 were a DIRECT LINK, except for possibly the Great Depression argument, which you have not given any impact for.

However, my argument of the enlightenment for humanity's morality still stands. Due to the things that happened in WW2, the rest of the world learned that such things could not be happening again and many things, from literature to civil and equal rights movements have their motives significantly influenced from WW2. If WW2 never happened, then many of our ideas would not exist today.

So far, that is standing strong in this debate. I do not see where I contradict myself.

You also agreed to my point about nationalism, so are you saying that the whole situation presented in my R1 is true?
Debate Round No. 3
DrAcula

Pro

First off, I personally find it disrespectful that you call 9/11 a setup. There's no arguments to use against you fanatics because you'll always be conspiracy theorists.

Did you not see the planes hit the towers? Plus, there were a lot more places that could have been hit if our own government wanted to make a statement?

The Islamic Fundamentalists attacked us, we went into Iraq because of bad intelligence BUT the people there have been nothing less of happy to see us overthrow their dictator. Who's fighting us in Iraq right now? Iranian insurgents, not "the people over there."

Moving from current affairs, which you obviously don't know about, to WW1, which again, you really don't know about.

Hitler: Would Germany winning solve the hatred of Jews? No, but the thing is, like I've said, WW1 was his tool to getting elected. Because Germany was so badly shafted punishment wise, he was able to talk to a crippled people about "rebuilding the motherhood, getting respect back, blah blah blah." That was the reason he was elected, that was the reason he was given so much power. He was a good orator, but a better moment seizer. That was the perfect opportunity for him to BS his way into the Holocaust. Even if he would be elected, he wouldn't have been given the absolute strength that he had in the real world.

"I am correct with my history and my interpretation of it, WW2 did not begin due to Germany's hate of the Big 3."

Yes it did. Look at the punishments that were handed out to Germany, and Russia.

Germany: Had to pay large sums of reparations, had to have a limited army, among other things. They had to take sole responsibility of the war, because they were the biggest country on the losing side. Not only did they have to pay things, they also lost some of there land.

Russia: Lost a lot of their land in Europe, which would then lead to that land becoming new countries.

How did this lead to WW1: Not only for paybacks sake, but Germany also wanted to get land back. THAT'S why they invaded Poland, to get some of there original land back.

How it led to the Cold War: Well, with the dawn of nuclear weapons never happening in my alternate world, then if the Cold war happened, it would be a lot smaller scale, but, nonetheless, WW1 punishments led to it, because Russia wanted it's original land back. Of course, they got it, and became the USSR.

None of this would have happened if Germany had won, and yes, you contradicted yourself, saying that had WW2 happened, it would help with morals, and things like that. Well, WW1 was a pretty large scale conflict, all countries noticed how bad it was, Germany just wanted payback.

Had we lost, we'd be just another country, which is a good thing. Not to mention that we wouldn't be looked down upon, because we wouldn't have the power to invade Vietnam, and in today's world, the Middle East.
Korezaan

Con

Well, I think it's disrespectful to generalize people as stupid zealous fanatics and to assume that you giving me evidence won't change my point of view, but if you want to believe I'm uninformed, hey, then so be it.

I will agree with your point about me-not-knowing-much-about-WW1; that's why we're having this debate. Interestingly enough however, I'm able to give reasoning behind my every point.

Hitler: I agree that the ending of WW1 gave him his big chance but again, that does not mean that the window of oppurtunity would be THE reason he got elected. You have not proven any reason why Hitler wouldn't have been elected anyways.

To my knowledge, Russia was part of the Big 3 so WW2 could not have started due to the Big 3. Also, according to your just-made post, Germany started WW2 in order to get its land back, also cancelling out your argument about hatred towards the Big 3.

You are incorrect about not having a rise of nuclear weapons. It was already being researched anyways by both sides.

You still aren't proving or telling me WHERE or HOW I contradicted myself. My argument is that even if you win all your impacts, then I can just turn them all by saying that we as a society learned a huge amount of moral lessons. This is AFTER WW2, AFTER the atomic bomb, AFTER Japanese-American imprisonment, and AFTER the Holocaust.

This is how the debate is breaking down.

At the first level, you must first prove that all your arguments are true, AND that they have a significant impact. At this point it seems like you're choosing to drop your "Depression" and "Terror" arguments and just go for "Hitler" and "Follow Up".

Second level. On my very first post I gave a situation of what would happen in that alternate world, and EVEN IF you win the point that there would've been no nuclear cold war, you must outweigh the alternative cold war between the Central Powers and the Allied Powers. OR, you just go and prove my first argument, the Industrial-Military Complex false. You've dropped that argument since R2, and even chose to agree with the premises of my contention.

Third level. Outweighing moral benefits. And just as a side note, I still don't see any posts by you telling me why I'm contradicting myself. There's a claim for sure, but where's your warrant?
Debate Round No. 4
DrAcula

Pro

The Big 3 took the land from Germany, Germany wanted their land back, and was angry at the big three.

Hitler wouldn't have rose to power, because the whole reason he got so much power, was because Germany was a fledgling nation, and they bent to his will, they wouldn't have done it if they actually had power.

There's still moral lessons to be learned, because of the war being wrong from the start. The fact that one could see the violence an alliance system could cause would lead them to learn a lesson.
Korezaan

Con

Okay.

That is incorrect. Hitler was one of the greatest orators of all time, and he would have risen to power regardless of if there was a depression or not. This "fledgling nation" argument has not been in existence until your last post and you have also not explained it, so I will ignore it.

You are correct when you say moral lessons are learned when a war that's wrong from the start is started. However, the atrocities that happened in WW2 and the moral lessons learned from THOSE catastrophes outweigh your argument significantly, and if Germany won WW1, those would have never happened.

Alright, so this is what the debate ends up at:

- The PRO did not defeat the Military-Industrial Complex argument, which would lead to a world that's controlled by the Central Powers and effectively making it worse than what happened in WW2.

- The only arguments PRO chose to hold are 1) Germany was pissed at the Big 3, 2) Hitler would not have risen to power, and 3) Moral lessons are also achieved by his side.

The first argument I win on two levels; first that he contradicted himself in R4, and second, that the Cold War in a world where the Central Powers won would be a lot more devastating than our world's Cold War, due to half of the world against the other instead of just US versus Russia, therefore already proving him wrong.

The second, he never shows you why Hitler would not have been elected if Germany didn't lose WW1.

The third argument, I overwhelmingly outweigh it. The Holocaust, imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, among many other things, has a significantly value in terms of the morals taught to society than just WW1. And besides, WW1 would've happened anyways in his world so the CON side gets both sides benefits.

- At that, the PRO side has no further arguments to support his position. Even if you don't believe that, you can still look to my advocacies and see from just that, the world would NOT be better off if Germany had won WW1.

Vote Con.

Thank you for the debate, DrAcula.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
No, the world would be better if that goddamn Treaty of Versailles never came into being.
Posted by ahundredhighways 9 years ago
ahundredhighways
yeah, i spent about a half hour going half pro, half con until i got to the cold war

i can usually change someones mind unless their to far to the left or right to listen

i'm just here to prove some points
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
lol, ahundredhighways. nice MAD argument.

I totally didn't think about that xD
Posted by ahundredhighways 9 years ago
ahundredhighways
i hit con because of one thing, nuclear weapons, because they would've not been invented if it wasn't for ww2, and with no nuclear weapons it eliminates the balance of power that we have today, the big countries don't go to war with eachother because they know when the button is pushed, the world ends, this keeps armies at home away from the killing fields and ultimately gives us an uneasy peace

and you didn't even to bother mentioning Japan, they were an ally in ww1, and part of the axis in ww2 and i have no doubt that they would've done the same as in the history books
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I don't know what Zietgeist the Movie is, and I'm generally not in line with "conspiracy theories." This is no "conspiracy theory" or a "theory" at all. It is a fact that the Federal Reserve exists, and that it controls the money supply. It is a fact that if flooded the money supply in the run-up to the Great Depression, and then contracted it as the Depression started and endured.
Posted by DrAcula 9 years ago
DrAcula
uh, yeah, the third reich didn't exist in WW1, and wouldn't have because the chances of hitler getting power, and having the ultimate power he did, while Germany would be actually strong (having won ww1), are slim to none
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Doesn't mean people didn't learn any morals from WW2. How do you think Lord of the Flies became one of the best books of all time?
Posted by DrAcula 9 years ago
DrAcula
i do know this topic better than you do, and it has nothing to do with your support of zeitgeist. you didn't know why ww2 started, and you talk about people not learning morals without ww2, when actuality, things like that went on for years, and still go on today.
Posted by alexthemoderate 9 years ago
alexthemoderate
Pure speculation, and I doubt you're either a military or historical expert. Who cares if Germany had won. The Allies won, and we would have been set back 100 years if the Third Reich had taken us over. We would have become part of their empire. How on earth would it be better for us to have been part of the German Empire?

The Great Depression had a lot bigger causes than an 'overzealous economy', namely, the lack of ANY sort of national banking system or support for our money in those banks. It was wildly unorganized. The Great Depression had a lot bigger contributors.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
clsmooth:

My assertion is if it just stopped at WW1, then countless people would have been morally abused. However since WW2 happened, the whole issue of eugenics and race was brought to light, and many civil/equal rights movements followed. I believe that it outweighs his argument that the world would have been better off if germany won WW1, because the world would be suffering a lot more problems than it does today.

My friend has his own list of technological stuff we gained form WW2 that I don't really know about, but I do know that Lord of the Flies would not have been written and as I wrote above, many other ethical issues would not have arisen.

It is in my mind that it is worse to torture someone than to just kill them with a bullet.

Multiply that by ten million for the killing side and infinity to the racism side, and you have my position.

I do not know enough about WW2 and African Americans to challenge you to a debate.

And I have watched ZeitGeist. I just decided not to use the arguments presented in there cause of something DrAcula said in R4.

____________________________________

DrAcula:

I would like to believe that I am well informed enough on the debates I choose to participate in on this site. But then again I'm just another stupid zealous conspiracy theorist in your mind that can't change, so meh.

Your attacks toward me are all unfounded and their only basis are within your own belief about how I work. I have a lot more to say to you about your need to research more, but I think that's not necessary.

If you believe that you know this topic better than I do, then so be it.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
DrAculaKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
DrAculaKorezaanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
DrAculaKorezaanTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
DrAculaKorezaanTied
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 l2jperry 9 years ago
l2jperry
DrAculaKorezaanTied
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 Erik 9 years ago
Erik
DrAculaKorezaanTied
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 Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
DrAculaKorezaanTied
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 Napier 9 years ago
Napier
DrAculaKorezaanTied
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 JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
DrAculaKorezaanTied
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 synhyborex 9 years ago
synhyborex
DrAculaKorezaanTied
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