The Instigator
Sanyasi
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points

They call Obama Socialist or Marxist

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
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,937 times Debate No: 5855
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

Sanyasi

Con

I have read some (hopefully) not very serious allegations against Obama's politics. Some of them say he is socialist, some that he is Marxist. I would like to comment some of this, as to whether this means he is a "threat" to America. I just saw Schwarzenegger supporting this statement, giving som false "evidence" from western Europe. Eastern Europe has had problems with socialism, but that's not where Schwarzenegger is from. The reason he was not successful in Europe, is probably that "nobody becomes prophet in his own country". He was different. Conservatives don't like that under any ideology.

If you look to Scandinavia, or Norway in particular, where I live, you would be surprised of how "socialist" we are, and still not suppressed. We have almost no poor people. And everybody who get sick will get medical help immediately, without exception. People in Norway don't need health-insurance. The maximum deductible for a whole year of health care in Norway is about $200. And that's about a days payment for an industrial worker in Norway. If you need to be hospitalized you pay $0.

The government even provides cars for people who can't drive ordinary cars, and we send people with chronic diseases abroad if other climates can help reduce symptoms. Education is free in Norway, and everybody will get a scholarship if they don't live with their parents. If you loose your job, our welfare system will provide you with money. It keeps you shopping - and therefore we don't get a chain-reaction with more unemployment. And still we have one of the strongest economies in the world, with an enormous growth and no debt.

When the rest of the economic world is falling down, we are relaxed and are looking at a worst case scenario of about 70 000 new unemployed. And it won't start a chain-reaction, because welfare provide you with purchase power. Our economy is not socialist, and its not capitalist. Its a mixed system. And it takes the best out of both. Americans, as it seems, are ignorant of this "middle way" as a possibility, still denying the downsides of too strong a capitalism.

The ignorance is probably highest amongst those who call Obama Marxist. They obviously don't know what Marxism is. The biggest Marxist would actually be extreme-capitalists, because Marx predicted that power would get on few hands, and then the people would take this power. This is what happens now, because of the crisis - government (the people) needs to take more control over financial institutions. Under McCain this will worsen. In Norway government control as little as possible, but still provides society with a safety net. This safety net helps our economy grow.

Americans are probably still scared from the propaganda from the cold war, and this could explain the fear for socialism. The true freedom lies in between the two systems. Nobody in Norway want socialism and few educated here people want pure capitalism. The reason for this is that in our system you know your economic problems will never threaten your children's health or education, and you know welfare will not inhibit your success.

We don't like capitalists, and we don't like socialists. Obama is a true capitalist for us in Norway, but we like him better because we think he is more evolved emotionally and intellectually than McCain. Fear doesn't mess up his reasoning. McCain focuses on fear. Every doctor can tell you that fear lowers your ability to think rationally. And it might reduce your chances in a presidential campaign? It reduces your power as a human being.

Please excuse the poor english, but my native language is Norwegian (a newer version of the Viking-language ;)

There is nothing in Obama's politics that makes him nearly socialist or marxist. I oppose these allegations. His politics means increasing the safety-net for the american people, and therefore empowering the markets. He is a capitalist. If he was socialist, he would promote government regulation of production and who gets what instead of the markets regulating this. Increasing the safety-net will not inhibit the american dream coming true, on the contrary. Providing safety through health-care is similar to providing safety through a strong army. A strong army is not socialist either.
I-am-a-panda

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for posting this topic. For the record, i would vote for Obama, but i would like to debate this topic with you. I would also like to add that this is my first debate, and not an easy one at that.

To start, Socialism/ Marxism is an ideology where you have maximum government control over business' with little or no privatley owned business. As you probably saw on the TV, Obama voted for the huge bank bail-out, which puts government control on privatley owned banks, which give loans to and control privatley-owned business in effect. He also advocates bringing in a universal health care system, abolishing the health care companies, which weakens the free market more.

The other main part here is his tax scheme, which would tax the wealthist portions of society instead of the lower ones. This is one of the key principals of socialism/marxism. As karl marx wrote 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' This translates to 'If someone has more than another, you give him that until you're all square'. To go further, Obama has admitted this, saying he will 'spread the wealth around'. This is oppresing the great 'american dream', where a man can start off small, as maybe a worker, and one day hope to run a large company, without being punished for his/her success.

Obama also refuses to give education vouchers to students of private schools, meaning he strongly proposes more children use public schools, which teach them what he wants them to hear.

To summarise my first round, Obama has called for more government regulation by voting for the bank bailout, make the population more equal and undiversified by advocating free healthcare and taking money off people who have worked tirelessly for years to get it and preference to students of public schools over ones of priavte schools. All of the above ideologies are socialist and therefore make Obama a socialist.
Debate Round No. 1
Sanyasi

Con

Thank you for your reply! It is nice to see that you are able to both vote for Obama, and to have critical thoughts on his politics. This is important in a democracy.

First, I would like to address the idea that if one supports government intervention in the free markets in some cases, then one are ideologically socialist. In the case of the bank-bailout we can see that it was necessary to do something to minimize the effects of the crisis on the economy. This is more a pragmatic decision than an ideological one. It was opposed on ideological basis, but accepted on pragmatic basis. Both McCain and Obama supported the bailout, and President Bush did also. People with widely different ideological backgrounds found it to be necessary even though they didn't like it.

In deep crisis one cannot let one self be limited by ideology. Actually – in total war, most democratic countries will need to be governed as a dictatorship. This doesn't mean that they have changed ideology. It is just a necessary evil, and they are probably fighting for their old ideology.

Secondly. I think it is important to look at the goals, not only the means. The difference between socialists and Obama that i find most profound, is that the socialist wants equality as a goal, while Obama seems to see it as a precondition. Even Adam Smith, the father of liberalist economics, and who wrote about the rational self-interest, found it reasonable that the rich should contribute proportionally more than the poor. What was he thinking?

Could it be that the rich has gained an unfair advantage? Is it easier to earn the second million than the first? I think it is. And I actually think that when you are amongst the rich, you get richer thanks to ordinary people. Consumers can lift people or organizations up, using the power of their dollars. So how unfair is it then to tax the rich a bit more? They will still increase their capital faster than the poor and the middle class. Of course one cannot overdo this;

The socialists wants to abolish any social differences, by redistributing all the money – and thereby also reducing personal freedom. Obama seems to want to give more people the equal opportunities. And they can still end up where they want. according to their dreams. In a socialist country, the real suppression lies in that all your achievements are stolen from you, and thought of as something the people own. I have never heard Obama suggesting anything close of this.

There is a logical fallacy called "slippery slope", and that is for example implying that "if we accept some regulation – we will soon have Stalinism". Each change has to be considered in it's own respect. Of course one could say that some of the things Obama wants to do has elements of socialism in them. That depends much on the definitions of what is the government duties. (should the police and army also be market regulated?). But to call someone socialist, implies that their goal is total regulation. I don't think this is true, because this is not the politics Obama is running for president with, and therefore I would call this a logical fallacy.

If one taxes the rich a bit more, I don't think you are limiting their success – if we are doing so because of a flaw in the self-regulation of the market. People with money are more likely to get more money. And they are in this position much thanks to the "little people". In all societies it has been expected that the rich man in the community helped the community in tough times, or by for example giving money to the local hospital or sports arena. This is because the rich man wouldn't be were he was – if it weren't for the other people. He had to do this to stay popular and successful.

Thirdly I have some thoughts about the American dream. I find other things to be more important as oppressors of the dream. And theses lies within the ultra-capitalist system. It seems to us in Scandinavia that people don't have the same opportunities in the US. If people are to have the same opportunities, then they also has to have as equal a starting point as the system can allow.

People born in rich families have greater opportunities than those born in poverty. This is oppressing on the next generation, who have done nothing wrong but to be born in the wrong family. These differences are keeping the American dream out of reach for most poor people – in the real world. Of course; in theory it seems possible to rise from poverty to the top, but it rarely is possible, and it is rarely done in the real world. In the real world, and especially in capitalist countries, we se the same families having great power, generation after generation.

In Norway we have this equality from early in life – and the children are unfortunately taught some things we don't like. This is inevitable. But the result is, that in Norway most people have a high level of education. You choose whatever career you want. If you want to be rich, you will probably become rich. And it doesn't depend on your parents income. To me, this seems like more in the spirit of the American dream.

To sum it up: Do one really need to be socialist to believe that a better health-care system could improve the possibilities to realize the American dream? Disease does not distribute fairly. It can happen to the hardest working people, and the laziest. Is it fair that those who have rich parents get the best education?

I think that it is possible to embrace some of the "socialist means", to strengthen the capitalist economy, and still not be a socialist. Disease in a society will reduce purchase power, and also reduce income of those who are healthy – to address these problems would bring prosperity to the whole country. People are still able to reach their dreams, but now they are doing it on top of a "layer" of safety and security.

I find the health care-reforms to be a discussion on the same level as to whether the police and army should be regulated by the government. If the government provide people with safety and security, then they are more free to achieve their goals. And to point this out: taxes are not a socialist invention. Taxes has always been to provide safety and security (as far back as to when our security was provided by warlords).
I-am-a-panda

Pro

Thank you again for posting a response. The debate will get good ffrom here on in.

Firstly, I agree, one cannot stick to their ideologies in times of crisis. But the question is, when to re-appose your ideologies after the smoke has cleared. Lets take this scenario. McCain is voted into office and runs an 8 year term. If, after the first 4 years, the economy restabilizes, he's going to de-regulate the banks and let the free-market thrive again. This is his Republican ideology. If Obama is voted into office, and after the first 4 years the economy re-stabilizes, he isn't going to de-regulate alot. This will slow the rate at which our economy will grow, as the rich pay more back to the poor, their wealth growth rate under Obama is less than under McCain.

Secondly, Socialism has a broad definition, and is often described differently by experts. On all levels, Socialsm has the goals of: 1. Narrowing the gap between rich and poor, 2. Taking power and reducing the influence of corporations and CEO's and 3. Generally putting more government in to peoples lifes. The means of which are 1. Taxing the rich heaveirly than the poor, 2. Publicising sectors such as education and health care and 3. Introducing laws where states can't decide on their own laws and of course, point no.2. If you have even vaguely followed the elections, you will know Obama supports and would implement all 3 of the above.

His tax plan gives tax breaks to those who earn under 250,000, he would publicise health care and take away supsidiries for children going to private schools and finally he would keep roe vs wade intact, not allowing for states to choose for themselves and increase gun control, which again, woudn't let states choose. (for what it's worth, I support gun control and am pro-choice, but feel ideologies should be implemented on the most local level possible). To challenge your quote 'But to call someone socialist, implies that their goal is total regulation. I don't think this is true, because this is not the politics Obama is running for president with', I have laid out above that socialism is not total regulation, but infact communism is(Stalinism to be precise). Socialism was designed as the blueprints of Communism but some thought ' This is infact a better ideology than communism '. Obama isn't heavily socialist, he is lightly socialist, moderate at best.

Also, Obama is a supporter of a 'nanny-state', where there are more regulations and restrictions. for example, California, a largely democratic state, has numerous nanny laws, such as no smoking in public. Obama even banned his own campaigners from wearing green in china, as to not offend anyobody. Although Obama is for green energy, McCain would give tax breaks to green business' and clean car companies. Obama would just put more regulations in place.

Thirdly, A powerful, rich family doesn't necesarilly mean the children are born into a perfect world with the best possible education and vica versa. The man with the highest recorded IQ in the world is Kim Ung-yong, a man with the IQ of 210. He is korean, and born in the 1960's, so whether he's from north, south or before the war, he surely comes from a poor or middle-class background. This is proof that your brains doesn't rely entirely on your education. It is true that powerful families remain in control for decade after decade like royalty, but like this, the wealth is continually divided up as generations progress, companies sometimes weaken and split and this cycle will start over as other big companies emerge or companies will be bought out.The American Dream is that you can become anything , and you argue that in a more idealogical Socialist system, you have an equal starting point. But often, even the best of people come from the slums(Rappers often come from Ghettos with nothing and make something of themselves) in a capitalist system, bacause they are not oppressed in any way.

To answer you're question 'Do one really need to be socialist to believe that a better health-care system could improve the possibilities to realize the American dream?'. Health care isn't a factor in the American Dream. The factor is 1. Money and 2.The Economy. Free health care can cost the government alot sometimes, and this can lead to cutbacks in other areas, such as community centres which can inspire people. You also say 'Disease does not distribute fairly. It can happen to the hardest working people, and the laziest.' There is no fault with that. It is 100% true. It most heavily hits the elderly, who are often well off with a pension. However, this includes the people who were sucessful corporate tycoons,businessmen,lawyers,judges,etc. with huge inheritance to pass on, so why should they be given free health care? Yes, health care to people who make ends meet with just enough to add into their sons tuition fee's or their pension, but not tycoons who, yes have provided us with essential services and products, but can fend for themselves with their tidy little profit.

To summarise: 1. Obama would have socialist ideologies should the recesion end whilse he is in office, 2. Obama is light/moderate socialist, with goals and means that match socialistic ones and 3. he American dream isn't limited to the well-off and health-care isn't a factor in it.

To end, you argued that Health care is comparable to police and Military being privatized as they provide security and safety. The under those circumstances, the PMC's(private Military companies) in the U.S. should be outlawed and acquired by the government. There are more contractors than troops in Iraq, and the PMC's rely on war as funding, so they would lobby for as many war's as possible, reducing safety and security. Doing this would substantially increase the safety and security as it bolsters the army's strength and prevents any military in the U.S. being bought up to attack it's own nation.
Debate Round No. 2
Sanyasi

Con

I have enjoyed this debate very much. We have covered a lot of ground here, and it seems strange that we only have gone two rounds till now. Keep it up now, this last round!

It is easy here to fall into the trap of debating wich system or view of economics is the best, and letting go of the principal discussion here. When the time comes when the economy has stabilized (hopefully within short time) I am not sure whether it matters if you are McCain or Obama. Government has to investigate what made the problems in the first place – if it was because of too much regulation, or to few regulations.

Alan Greenspan says he has found a flaw in the system, and that he was shocked to find that what he has believed to be working exceptionally well for 40 years (the morality of self-interest), was indeed flawed. I am sure, no matter what the lesson is, that what the president learns from this crisis will make him do the right thing. But one should also concider whether it is fair to make the tax-payers take the bill for problems that might have arisen because of greed in the financial institutions. If time comes when this shows to have been a good investment, then the investors (the tax-payers) should perhaps benefit from it.

If you wan't back to the system before the current regulations, because you think it will increase the wealth growth rate, then I think you might build a house on sand. And I think that if there is a flaw in the system, and one has to correct this using some "socialist means", then one still should concider it a capitalist system.

To your third point. When we are discussing how the rich are closer to the american dream it is not relevant whether wealth is divided from generation to generation. I tell you poverty divides at a much faster rate! The poor have many more children. But the american dream is about you, and your possibilities, not your grand-childrens. As I said earlier: If you have a lot of money, then you can easily earn lots of more money. And in this way, the rich keep their economic advantage. Even if generation goes, money grows faster than it is divided in rich families.

As you say, your brain does not depend solely on your education, but most people have an average IQ, and aren't they entitled to have the same possibilities as all Americans if they come from a poor family? What if you had to work to feed your siblings from your early teen-years? Would you reflect on your mental gifts? Would you take the time to realize them? Of course not.

You say that rappers often come from ghettos with nothing and make something of themselves in the capitalist system. True. But thats about the only option they have. If you aren't a world class rapper – you stay in the ghetto. The american dream seems like the exception not the rule. In Norway nobody would lift an eyebrow if they heard such a story. It would be perfectly normal. And the person from the ghetto could also become prime minister or head of the biggest industries in Norway. We wouldn't know, and we wouldn't care.

You say that the only thing that matters to the american dream is Money and The Economy. Health is actually a branch of economics (health economics). People who are sick (from both mental and somatical diseases), and do not have an optimal health-care - they cost society billions of dollars in higher crime rates, in reduced purchase power, and much more. If you get a chronic disease wich limits your abilities, and cost you all your money, then your dreams are not coming true – sorry. And you can see very clearly that in Africa, the economic systems do not work at all – much because of diseases.

Universal health-care is an investment, in safety and stability. Health is concidered a capital, and it is vital for the capitalist system – that is the reason why firms invest in insurance for their employees. But they don't nearly cover enough ground to keep America as healthy as it needs to be for the system to be well lubricated. Disease is very costly both for firms, and for the whole country through hidden costs, and it could very well pay off for the whole financial system to secure a better health-care system for America.

If America is under attack from a foreign nation, you would understand the necessity to restore security. But a microbial attack is not the same? Whether health care is a right that everybody in a nation should recieve is more of a philosophical question, than it is a question of socialism vs capitalism. It has to do with the recognition of health (and you could use the same thinking on education) as a basic human need. When these fields are not covered by government, then the negative spin-offs take on monumental proportions. And it directly influence the citizens abilities to realize their possibilites, and as a consequence of this influence firms and the economy negatively.

So, I do not find the socialism you are talking about in these cases. I find difference in philosophy, and perhaps lack of understanding of long term consequences. In most other countries the universal health care system is of course based on tendering. If this system is financed through fair taxation, it will not be a "redistribution" of money, nor an attempt to correct social differences made from the capitalist system – in a way that a socialist proposal would be.

The socialism I know, and that goes back to Marx, is quite simple – it does not accept social differences, and it does not accept (much) private ownership of industry. The socialist ideology do not talk about other differences than the economic – for example putting more government into peoples lives, abortion, gun laws or environment. More government is only relevant if the government that is put into peoples lives is relevant - to the socialist ideology.

If Obama wants to make it easier to produce clean cars – then this might be because the capitalist system has not taken this problem seriously enough quickly enough – and it is probably going to cost the economic world everything, and then some, to set things right when all hell breaks lose. Smoking is likewise so costly to society, that one has to find the health capital calculator and figure this out. But these things do not have anything to do with social differences.

It has to do with safety, security and stability.

Why do you think Al Gore got the peace prize? Why do you think the world health organization is having a war on smoking? These things should not be mixed with the simple socialist ideology. They do have enormous economic conseqences, but they are not an issue of redistribution nor working class/state ownership of industry. These problems are universal. They are a problem for all of humanity.

So, I still don't agree that Obama is a light or moderate socialist. One key point here, is that Obama does not want industries to be nationalized. He doesn't want the workers to take over anything. He wants more regulations, true, but he is not going to tell Coca Cola that they have to stop producing coca cola, and start producing infant formula. He is not going to tell them that they should sell without any gain. He is not going to tell people that this week there is one pound of meat per family. So he is not a socialist. Not even feather weight. There exists no socialists that do not want state ownership or collective ownership of at least key industry, or the money therefrom.

But remember; this doesn't mean that Obama won't put the brakes on the economy for a while. Perhaps it is necessary to ensure a healthy fundament.

I have enjoyed this debate, and perhaps we could do the same kind of debate with the republican side in the next presidential campaign; determining whether republicans are (light) fascists? ;-)
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I would like to thank you for this debate, and hope the voters make the right choice for themselves.

To start, we have gone a bit of track, discussing and debating the socialist ideologies rather than the fact Obama is infact a socialist.

But I will adress you on you're first half. I have a prime example of the capitalist-socilaist balance you speak of. I am irish, and as you might know, we had the celtic tiger economic boom. Because we invested in the capitalist system, we got huge economic growth (6% was about the highest) and are now about as modern as the UK and U.S. But we have a socialist side to us, as our politicians aren't as comitted to being as far left or as far right as they can be. We have a welfare system which pays hard cash, not stamps. We also have medical cards for those who cannot afford health care. We have maternal leave for mothers,etc. But its because we relied on the capitalist system that we grew so much.

Take a look at North Korea. They are a communist state and have an almost non-existant economic growth, as opposed to their southern neighbours. They have experimented with special economic zones, and are finding that all nations need the capitalist system to take off and grow until they can adopt a socialist stance.

As for the american dream, the dream is that you can become something out of nothing. You're argument that the rich are closer to this is invalid, as the rich are already in the american dream and living it. Yes poor families divide faster than rich ones, and rich people get more money quickly than the poor. But when the redistribution of wealth happens, nobody gains no more than his fellow neighbour, Infact, this can lead to a slow loss of wealth over time, and eventually everyone becomes poor. The fact is, the rich have to be around. They provide the money to give us services that we demand and in return we pay them.

It is true that the rich have a better chance of realising their full potential, but most don't. Take a look at any spoiled 'daddies girls' you see on TV and most of them aren't smart, but stupid. Most of the smart people come from upper middle class, not the off-springs off oil-tycoons or CEO's of Nike, but working parents.

Yes, health can play a role in economics, but not in today's standings upon the modern world. The last epidemic to sweep humans was the spanish flu that killed millions. The only major outbreaks our amongst cattle, like foot and mouth disease. Every baby in the 1st world is vaccinated, so that they can't be stopped by disease. The only disease that attacks our work forces is the flu, which is easily protected against. Yes, HIV and AIDS leaves the economics of Africa in ruins. But war is the biggest problem, and kills millions un-neccasarily.

On to Obama then. You say 'he is not going to tell Coca Cola that they have to stop producing coca cola'. He woudn't go that radical, but he would publicise health-care, re-publicise the social security and would publicise all education if he had the chance. I'm not saying I'm critical of this. But publicising things is socialistic. Its true that socialism is mainly about state-property, but it also carries the democratic ideologies with it. obama also advocates for greater workers rights, like minimum wage. Again, I dont disagree with this, its just this is socilaistic.

I enjoyed this debate, and yes, lets debate obver those fascist republicans !! Grrr.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
I won't debate from the comments section, but I must predict that B.O. will govern from a Marxist ideology. Instead of looking at campaign rhetoric or definitions of socialism, look to empirical methodology. Marx established that the path to socialism is revolution born of discontent. To wit: The Bolshevik revolution in Russia.
Consider these B.O. policies:
1. Cap and Trade legislation that will tax all Americans - rich and poor, alike. This tax is designed to bring the USA to its knees, ala Marx.
2. Universal Health Care. We are not a monolithic society - as are the states of Scandinavia. The leftist purposes of this proposed legislation are two-fold. First to gain control of the largest component of our economy, and second to bring illegal aliens into the system.
3. Promote welfare for the losers of society by increasing the taxes on the producers (today those in the top income tiers, and tomorrow most of the producers, as a result of the inflation that items 1 & 2 will cause) while giving "rebates" to 45% of workers who presently do not pay income taxes.
4. Restricting nuclear power, petroleum exploration and development, and coal usage in the name of the convenient lie of global warming.
5. Spending huge sums and piling on more federal debt than all previous administrations combined.
6. Funding left wing entities - in his so-called stimulus package - out to 2012, to ensure reelection, and to position himself for the completion of his revolution.
Posted by yogi 8 years ago
yogi
Agreed
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I think Obama has FDR, Johnson, and Kennedy beat. He espouses all their beliefs plus his own. We're on the verge of socialized medicine. If FDR thought it a good idea, he would have included it in the New Deal. He had the opportunity.
Posted by the_conservative 8 years ago
the_conservative
Ragnar.......what ever the hell your name is
Posted by the_conservative 8 years ago
the_conservative
you are a complete idiot Ranger_Rahl
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"the_conservative
No as much as i hate to say it, Obama is not a Marxist or Scoialist. He is just the most radical left winged candidate America has ever had.
"

Never heard of FDR eh?
Posted by Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
even if Obama makes it to Washington he won't be a radical president. Obama, and I hate to disappoint those of you who are voting for him simply on his "Time for Change" slogan, will be a more conservative president. I don't think he'll be a bad president, but i doubt he will be that radical in the White House.
Posted by the_conservative 8 years ago
the_conservative
No as much as i hate to say it, Obama is not a Marxist or Scoialist. He is just the most radical left winged candidate America has ever had.
Posted by Sanyasi 8 years ago
Sanyasi
Sorry. Language barriers might have made my message unclear. I am not accustomed to the formalities here. I have tried to make a clearer resolution.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
What is the resolution?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
SanyasiI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Comrade_Ulyanov 7 years ago
Comrade_Ulyanov
SanyasiI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 8 years ago
The_Booner
SanyasiI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Zeratul 8 years ago
Zeratul
SanyasiI-am-a-pandaTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
SanyasiI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ItalianStalian7 8 years ago
ItalianStalian7
SanyasiI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
SanyasiI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
SanyasiI-am-a-pandaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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