The Instigator
zach12
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

There will be a Total World War between the Judo-Christian and Islam worlds within the century.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 3/28/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,123 times Debate No: 7582
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (10)

 

zach12

Pro

There will be a Total World War between the Judo-Christian and Islam worlds within the century.

Definitions: Judo-Christian World: All the countries in Western Europe, North America, and South America as well as Australia, Israel, Russia, and countries in the southern half of Africa, but those won't participate much.

Islam World: All the countries in the Middle East, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, and the northern half of Africa.

Now to the actual debate:

Contention 1: The two religions are historically incompatible.

There have been countless Islam- Christian conflicts including the crusades, recent Jihad activity, and many others.

Contention 2: Muslims do not currently desire peace

Some Muslims (especially Sunnis) call Jihad the sixth pillar of Islam and that there must always be a push to eradicate all non-Muslims.

Contention 3: Islam is spreading and becoming as powerful as Christianity.

Immigration in Europe and higher birth rates has made the number of Muslims in Europe triple in the last 30 years.

Contention 4: Both sides have the potential to win

Both sides have viable attack methods. The Christians currently hold the upper hand but the Muslims could simply stop supplying the West with crude oil and wait for us to run dry before attacking

Good luck to whomever accepts this open debate
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this unique debate, let's get going ;)

There's something important to note. My opponent's resolution implies that he is arguing that religion will cause World War 3, but there is nothing explicitly stated in his opening argument that says this. In fact, he can very well argue that World War 3 (a fancy term we will use to refer to his hypothetical total world war) will happen due to, perhaps, political reasons, and will simply INVOLVE the Judeo-Christian and Islam countries respectively at polar ends. Effectively, he can refer to religious terminology as mentioning it, not using it.

The concept of mentioning terms, not using them, happens many times among racial words. For example, anthropologists have already given an official statement basically saying that race is not a biological construct, but rather a social construct. However, many scientists still use racial terminology in their studies, but they won't use it (in the sense that people are biologically separated by race), bur rather mention (in the sense that you gotta have a word to use for describing demographics of people).

This may seem tedious and irrelevant, but this is a very possible route my opponent can use. HOWEVER, there is a major catch if he does: it's going to be balls-aching hard. If he were to argue that World War 3 will happen due to political reasons, they he will have to give very convincing reasons for why EVERY country he listed will be on the side he states, and why they won't go on the other side or simply not be a part of it. For example, if Kazakhstan were to not be involved with World War 3, then I will have won this debate. For him to argue that this war will happen due to other reasons besides religion will be quite the task.

HOWEVER, even if his only viable route is to argue religion will be factor that pulls Islam against the Judeo-Christian worlds, he will still have the difficult task of explaining why every country will be involved (as he has listed). If, as stated before, I can show that one country won't, then I have won this debate.

Do note that neither of us can accurately predict if this will or will not happen. At best, the debate should be judged on who argued best for their respective side.

With that horrendously long introduction over, I shall now refute his arguments:

=========
Con Claims: The two religions are historically incompatible.
=========

Yes, it is true that in history many religious wars were caused between the clash of Christianity and Islam. However, this is the 21st century. Despite what our opinion of religious people are now, we as a whole have advanced quite a lot. Many places such as Dubai[1], a prominent Arabic country, are much more culturally diverse. There is much more tolerance in this world than there was before, and this should be noted.

Despite the animosity between many Islams and Christians, it would be taking a very large stride to say that we will have an epic world war because of this.

=========
Con Claims: Muslims do not currently desire peace
=========

While it is true that there are Islamic extremists, their numbers are DEFINITELY not a majority. In fact, in many Muslim countries even the numbers of Muslims who support Osama bin Laden is decreasing, something even "dramatically"[2][3].

=========
Con Claims: Islam is spreading and becoming as powerful as Christianity.
=========

Islam is spreading, but it would an enormous error to say that every Muslin is going to be an extremist. As stated in my previous argument, support for extremism (even in predominately Muslim countries) is declining and cultural diversity/tolerance is rising.

=========
Con Claims: Both sides have the potential to win
=========

Yes, many countries such as America are starting to have a growing foreign oil dependency. But according to the EIA, "the United States has 21 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2000. The U.S. uses about 6.6 billion barrels per year. That is only enough oil to last the U.S. about three and a half years without importing oil from other countries.[4]" While several years isn't much, do realize that this is a TOTAL WAR. As my opponent has stated in the comment sections, this war will be a catastrophic one. If it really is a World War, then the U.S. (and definitely Europe) will not resort to diplomatic if their oil reserves are threatened.

I mean, just look at the countries my opponent has listed. America? Britain? France? Israel? Russia? Australia? These are very well developed first world countries, and in this case, Judeo-Christian countries. Now look at the Islamic countries. The Middle East? Armenia? Turkmenistan??? Does anyone even know the last country listed? No, you know why? Because if the Islamic worlds were to go head on with the Judeo-Christian worlds, they will get militarily r*ped.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was quick and successful. The US, being the most powerful military in existence, would probably have no trouble taking on every Islamic world right now without any assistance. But you give them the aid of the Russians and Brits? God d*mn it man, it's a massacre!

We have F-22 Raptors and B-2 stealth bombers, and they have old Cold War era planes. We have nuclear missile silos and submarines, and they have RPG's that blow up in their face half the time. We have M1A1 Abrams tanks and they have hand-me-down tanks from the old Soviet Russia. We have Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarriers, and they have tugboats.

Do you really think the Muslims will try to have a full scale campaign?

=========
My Argument: A substantial reason for Muslim attacks stems from anti-Americanism, and their intended methods differ from total war
=========

My opponent has cited the "jihads" as being causes for Muslim attacks, and that's true. However, what he doesn't realize is that they do not intend to have a full-scale war against Western powers; even they realize that this will be futile. Instead, they are attempting to make themselves look like matrys, and effectively, are trying to push for a movement of anti-Americanism[5][6] rather than a military campaign.
=========
My Argument: How do you know every country listed will engage?
=========

CON lists countries affiliated with the "Judeo-Christian world" and the "Islam world". I ask of him - how does he know each of these countries will engage? What if one of them decides to not engage? Because if that is so, then this debate is mine. It if therefore my opponent's HEAVY burden to show why there will be such a massive movement to include every country listed.

=========
Conclusion
=========

While there is genuine animosity between Christians and Muslims, my opponent over exaggerates this division. This is the 21st century, and we are seeing how Samuel P. Huntington's ideas of "civilizations clashing"[8] are becoming archaic and old.

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
3. http://pewglobal.org...
4. http://maps.unomaha.edu...
5. http://130.182.123.66/tempfiles/tmp204/Anti-Americanism10.pdf
6. http://130.182.123.66/tempfiles/tmp204/Anti-Americanism10.pdf
7. http://130.182.123.66/tempfiles/tmp7339/1.pdf
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
zach12

Pro

Thank you, Skeptic for accepting my open debate.

I do not wish to pull my opponent into a semantics trap. I'm sorry for not explicitly saying that religion will cause WW3. I am predicting that it will.

My opponent claims that because this is the twenty first century horrendous things like this can't happen because we have progressed. I agree we have seen progress in the Zeitgeist (spirit of the times) but decades of progress can be undone in just a few short years. This happened in Rwanda in 1994, in Germany during WW2, The Taliban in Afghanistan and many others.

I must dispel two misconceptions about the zeitgeist. These two are:

1. The Zeitgeist is always gradual progress.
2. Moderates in religion pose no threat.

>>> 1 <<<

The zeitgeist moves in a precarious saw tooth. It moves toward progress shakily, but can all too easily slip back in a regression. With almost no notice a "good" modern society can slip into atrociousness, especially in times of crisis. People are all too eager to give up their rights, or their morals, if they think it will soon improve things for them. Look at Julius Caesar, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Pinochet, and many others. America and the whole democratic world are in a crisis. The recent recession is now starting to be considered a depression. Just like the Romans, the Chileans, the Italians, we look to Obama as a savior. This has historically led to dictatorship. I'm not saying Obama will become a dictator, and I'm aware of the checks and balances in government that Bush did his best to get rid of. All I'm saying is the prerequisites are there and we're heading toward some form of major conflict.

>>> 2 <<<

Religious "moderates" are a tide pool of potential evil. Just as most of the Germans in Germany were closet anti-Semitists but would never start a holocaust. However, add a fanatical leader into the mix and everyone turns a blind eye or even supports it. If the Crusades are any example, people will get worked up when they have a common enemy, no matter whether that enemy did anything to deserve the disgust. The simple fact that 80% of the U.S. is Christian and that we have always had a Christian president could contribute towards this war. We're already fighting a war on religion. We may like to call it the war on "terror" as if terror had a will of its own. We can employ all kinds of euphemisms like the potential for WMD's, but the simple fact is it's a war on religion. We don't need a whole horde of fanatics to make a religious war, we need one in power. Religious moderates will always produce some extremists, who somehow tend to get into leadership positions.

Now I must point out that a lot can change in 91 years. I am aware that at the moment, we could massacre the Middle East. The U.S. has had a meteoric rise and it can have a meteoric fall. Indeed, we're already on our way. We could easily see, with no stretch of the imagination, how things could be different in twenty, forty, eighty years.

Muslims already don't desire peace, as my opponent has conceded. This doesn't bode well, especially since some Muslims believe newer Koran verses trump older ones. Unfortunately, the peaceable verses in the Koran are all in the equivalent of our Old Testament. The newer verses are riddled with mentions of burning heretics, slashing them with swords, and that a martyr's death will send the person to a separate, better form of rapture.

It is estimated that Muslims will be the majority in Spain in less than 25 years. The thing with democracy is, once this happens, Muslims will be in charge. They haven't historically been very nice to other religious groups and their culture alone will bring extremists to fruition.

Now I must address the "will every country engage in this war" argument. There is absolutely no way of knowing. A lot can change in 91 years; maybe the U.S. will become predominately Islam. I believe restricting this potentially very interesting debate into a semantics battle will end any interest of readers and be counter-productive. I humbly ask that you can argue the main topics instead of going on a tangent.
TheSkeptic

Con

My opponent has seemingly ignored or "done away" with several of my key points. As such, I will first go through his counterarguments, then highlight argument he has failed to respond to.

[quote]My opponent claims that because this is the twenty first century horrendous things like this can't happen because we have progressed.[quote]

No, horrible things can still happen in the 21st century. The September 11 attacks are an obvious example. However, to say an transcontinental war between two religions will happen amongst practically all, if not most, of the world powers, is pushing it. I'm simply saying that people living in the 21st century are much more tolerant, open-minded, and knowledgeable. While there are many fanatics in the world, the amount of people who are at least tolerant of religion outweighs it much MUCH more.

==========
The Zeitgeist can quickly "slip back" into "atrociousness"
==========

[quote]People are all too eager to give up their rights, or their morals, if they think it will soon improve things for them. Look at Julius Caesar, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Pinochet, and many others. America and the whole democratic world are in a crisis. The recent recession is now starting to be considered a depression.[quote]

There are several problems with this argument:

1. The examples you listed are of dictators or those with great power over their respective nations. America, on the other hand, is a republic democracy. One of it's foundations, the Constitution, was created based on the idea of compromise. Similarly so, many European countries who you have listed to be among the Judeo-Christian worlds are also based on a democratic government. It will be very hard for all of these countries to wage war against "the Muslims" than for Stalin or Castro. You are making a fallacious analogy due to the fact that the Judeo-Christian worlds (which I will not refer to as JD worlds) are built on the idea of making change slow. If people wanted a war, it will be very hard to get it pass. On a transcontinental scale? Much more impossible.

2. How exactly will the recession call people into war? I'm not a historian, but last I checked, the Great Depression of 1929 did NOT make people want to wage war - certainly not against a particular religion. Sure, America did go into war around time, but that was because we were bombed by the Japanese.

[quote]Just like the Romans, the Chileans, the Italians, we look to Obama as a savior. This has historically led to dictatorship. I'm not saying Obama will become a dictator, and I'm aware of the checks and balances in government that Bush did his best to get rid of. All I'm saying is the prerequisites are there and we're heading toward some form of major conflict.[quote]

We certainly don't look to Obama as a "savior", but rather as a good president (depending on who you support, obviously). However, even if we were fanatically in love with him, checks and balances will keep him in place. More importantly, you have no evidence or reason to say that Obama will want to wage war against Islam. For someone who originally wanted to leave Iraq by 2011, I highly doubt he would want a World War 3.

==========
Religious moderates can become extremists easily, and fast
==========

[quote]However, add a fanatical leader into the mix and everyone turns a blind eye or even supports it.[quote]

Which proves my point - we have checks and balances to prevent "fanatical leaders" in government from going crazy with power.

[quote]Indeed, we're already on our way. We could easily see, with no stretch of the imagination, how things could be different in twenty, forty, eighty years.[quote]

If you're arguing this war will happen in the distant future, then this debate is pointless. Neither of us can give a barely accurate assessment of what history will be like in 20-80 years, except fuzzy pictures.

[quote]Muslims already don't desire peace, as my opponent has conceded.[quote]

Well of course some Muslims don't desire peace, but that's not the point. The point is that only an extreme minority of Islam are jihads or fanatics. Secondly, you deliberatley ignore my point that the Muslim extremists, including the Taliban and bin Laden, don't plan to stage a military CAMPAIGN against Western powers, but a MOVEMENT. The September 11 attacks were tragic, but they were in no way a tactical win for the terrorists (actually a loss, since we responded by attacking and wiping out large numbers of terrorists).

==========================================================================
==========================================================================
==========================================================================

I will now list the many arguments and points my opponent has either completely ignored or failed to refute:

1. He fails to realize the extremists plan - they don't want a full-scale war (they know they will lose against Western might). Rather, they want a movement. Quite different from WORLD WAR 3.

2. He fails to respond to my question of why the Muslims would even attempt to wage war against Western powers when they know the military might of Western powers are much greater. Even if they were to suddenly shut off foreign oil supplies, this can be seen as an act of war already.

3. He says my question of "how do you know every country will be part of it" is SEMANTICS. This is categorically wrong. It is certainly not a "semantics argument", and my opponent shouldn't abuse the term. It's clear and explicit: how do you know every country you have listed will be part of it? Such a complete and large collaboration would take a tremendous event; the magnitude of that which has never been witnessed in mankind's history. I suspect that such a burden for my opponent was too much, so he decided to somehow "dismiss it".

==========
Conclusion
==========

My opponent has failed to respond to many arguments, and his new points are barely convincing. He is constantly over exaggerating the divisiveness of religion, and until his argument become even close to convincing, the clear winner is CON.
Debate Round No. 2
zach12

Pro

I will first address my opponent's statement that, because of the U.S.' system of checks and balances, a dictatorial form of government cannot occur.

The Roman Republic also had a complex constitution with checks and balances, but when things started going wrong, they gave immense powers to Julius Caesar, sort of like executive orders after 9/11. With our recession, it's like destroying our country's immune system. When something ELSE happens, we will be in big trouble. What good are our laws if they can be overturned?

Julius Caesar came back to Rome from his governorship in Spain with his army. He wanted the great victory procession that the Senate granted certain generals to honor especially great achievements, and to run for Consul. The law did not allow him to do both. It required him to stay outside the city with his army, and demanding that he canvass for votes personally inside the city. Caesar asked for special allowance but the senate would hear nothing of it. So Caesar managed to corrupt certain politicians which weakened the already financial strained republic.

Then, Caesar went away again and Pompey was elected sole consul and the senate ordered that Caesar, when he returned, must lay down his command. This sparked a civil war between the supporters of both sides.

Something as simple as this can destroy a republic.

The Middle East is already generally despised, so as long as it was in stages (the Nazi's way), it wouldn't be too hard to ease the American People into a total war with them, especially since the memory of WW2 is dying with its veterans. The American youth nowadays are irreverent, irresponsible, and disrespectful. A world war happened merely 20 years after the first, I think we're overdue, especially since modern weapons technology is so advanced. We could lay waste to millions in a second.

A democracy is only as restrained as its people. Obama has huge support, and if the Middle Eastern terrorists do something else terrible to us, we won't hesitate to fight them once-and-for-all.

|| >>> Well of course some Muslims don't desire peace, but that's not the point <<< ||

If they don't desire peace, and we're going through an economic crisis, and they attack us again, what will happen?

|| >>> He fails to realize the extremists plan - they don't want a full-scale war (they know they will lose against Western might). Rather, they want a movement. Quite different from WORLD WAR 3. <<< ||

They will lose against western might right now… but in less than ten years that could change, and then the tides of power will turn.

|| >>> He fails to respond to my question of why the Muslims would even attempt to wage war against Western powers when they know the military might of Western powers are much greater. Even if they were to suddenly shut off foreign oil supplies, this can be seen as an act of war already. <<< ||

Same as above…

|| >>> He says my question of "how do you know every country will be part of it" is SEMANTICS. This is categorically wrong. It is certainly not a "semantics argument", and my opponent shouldn't abuse the term. It's clear and explicit: how do you know every country you have listed will be part of it? Such a complete and large collaboration would take a tremendous event; the magnitude of that which has never been witnessed in mankind's history. I suspect that such a burden for my opponent was too much, so he decided to somehow "dismiss it". <<< ||

Every major country will be a part of it in the same way that every one was part of the First World War. It was started by something as inconsequential as an assassination between two relatively small countries, but since they were supported by stronger countries, sides were chosen and war started.
TheSkeptic

Con

I applaud my opponent for his somewhat original argument, but I'm sorry to say that the mass majority of what he has said are either red herrings, false analogies, or over-exaggerations. I will first plow through his new points, then recap on the other points/issues/argument he has either dropped, or failed to refute adequately.

====================
Roman Republic is an analogy of what can happen
====================

My opponent's entire historical analogy is at a flaw: we, and most other Judeo-Christian countries, are not republics. Instead, we have a democratic system (of sorts), and a working Constitution. It's the Constitution that helps prevent an imbalance of power from happening, such as Rome. As such, this entire analogy is faulty.

{quote}The Middle East is already generally despised, so as long as it was in stages (the Nazi's way), it wouldn't be too hard to ease the American People into a total war with them, especially since the memory of WW2 is dying with its veterans. The American youth nowadays are irreverent, irresponsible, and disrespectful. A world war happened merely 20 years after the first, I think we're overdue, especially since modern weapons technology is so advanced. We could lay waste to millions in a second.{endquote}

----> My opponent makes big claims here (American teens are irresponsible and will somehow lead us to war?), but gives absolutely no reason or evidence for any of these claims. Empty claims don't constitute to a good argument - my opponent's point here is empty and should be dropped since this is the last round, and he has no way to defend these points.

{quote}A democracy is only as restrained as its people. Obama has huge support, and if the Middle Eastern terrorists do something else terrible to us, we won't hesitate to fight them once-and-for-al{endquote}

----> Again, my opponent claims that Obama will fight against the Middle-East. Not only is this an empty claim, but even if it were true how will it make half of the world join as well? My opponent once again misses the target.

{quote}If they don't desire peace, and we're going through an economic crisis, and they attack us again, what will happen?...They will lose against western might right now… but in less than ten years that could change, and then the tides of power will turn.{endquote}

----> Again, my opponent ignores my arguments pertaining to 1. our military is much more powerful and they know it and 2. the extremists do NOT desire to have an all-out war against America or any Western powers. He says we don't know what will happen in the future, but again - that makes this debate pointless. None of us will know our technological fate in decades, so why bother speculating so far out?

{quote}Every major country will be a part of it in the same way that every one was part of the First World War. It was started by something as inconsequential as an assassination between two relatively small countries, but since they were supported by stronger countries, sides were chosen and war started.{endquote}

----> Very bad usage of history again. The assassination was only a proximal cause; there were several big factors leading to it before. First, alliances between European countries meant that if one of these countries (in the alliance) went to war, the rest would also. Secondly, imperialism meant that many countries wanted to expand their land and empires, which obviously led to tension. These are only several of the major factors leading to WW1 - you extremely oversimplify the situation.

====================
Recap and conclusion
====================

My opponent uses history like a blind man; he doesn't realize the differences between today and the examples he uses. Not only that, but he evades many of my arguments by simply stating that "it's in the future, you never know". Well duh, we might be invaded by spaghetti monsters. Does this mean we should take gigantic precautions towards this? OF COURSE NOT. While I'm not saying we should pay attention to the Middle-Eastern conflict, to over exaggerate it by stating World War 3 will happen is, by far, erroneous.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by McBain 8 years ago
McBain
JUDO-CHRISTIAN CHOP!

Don't mess with da skillz punk!
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
What we are ACTUALLY seeing is the liberal/socialist elite siding WITH Muslims under the guise of multi-culturalism.
It is Born-again, Bible-believing Christians who are increasingly being marginalised and persecuted.
Their mantra is always 'we must not offend or discriminate againt minorities!' UNLESS of course they happen to be Christians!
The NEW WORLD ORDER is multi-cultural and multi-faith.. There is only ONE group of people who oppose this.. the ones who follow Him who said:
" I am THE Way, THE Truth and THE Life. NO one comes to the Father EXCEPT by Me."
Posted by runningdeergv 8 years ago
runningdeergv
there already is a form of world war. the ideologies of the west and of islam are extremely different ad radical muslims call for the destruction of america and her allies.
Posted by asyetundefined 8 years ago
asyetundefined
ZACH12- a war IN-YOUR-HEAD between Islam and Christianity is NOT an ACTUAL war between said factions; rather you are seeing things!!
Furthermore: ever heard of the dialectic? A thesis and antitheses, (Islam & Christianity) being diametrically opposites are, as said, in 'conflict'; however, instead of prolonging the conflict between the two an eventual and harmonious SYNTHESIS is reached - that is, a third option (meshing of religion, ending of religion, humanism, what-have-you). Your problem is SHORT-SIGHTEDNESS, which blinds you from seeing this eventual solution.
Posted by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
sure
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Thats debatable, no pun intended. We could debate that sometime?
Posted by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
and now JP, you can see some of the reason I'm so hostile to religion... it is mainly divisive of the world's people and will cause much more suffering in the world than happiness.
Posted by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
and i think this is the first thing you and I have agreed on JP. But the sad thing is this probably will happen and I don't want to be around when it does
Posted by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
that wouldn't change a thing panda, it would still be a war between the two, no matter what it decides to parade itself as
Posted by JP 8 years ago
JP
Actually Zach 12, I think that it is very possible. You're probably right.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
zach12TheSkepticTied
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 zach12 6 years ago
zach12
zach12TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
zach12TheSkepticTied
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 Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
zach12TheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 8 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
zach12TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by Marine1 8 years ago
Marine1
zach12TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by TheSexicanMexican 8 years ago
TheSexicanMexican
zach12TheSkepticTied
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 DaltonDem 8 years ago
DaltonDem
zach12TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by aeopimp92 8 years ago
aeopimp92
zach12TheSkepticTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
zach12TheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05