The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

This house would abolish school runs

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,259 times Debate No: 27838
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




Nice to meet you MrDebitCredit0995. I would like to debate against you on this topic, if school runs should be abolished.

I will be the Pro in the case which means I carry burdens of proof which in this case would be to show how school run is harmful and why that harm calls for abolition.

I will define the country as any place that has controversy about banning school run or not because that would leave a room for both sides to debate.

These are the rules for each round.

R1 - Acceptance, Definition
R2 - Arguments from Pro, Rebuttal and Argument from Con
R3 - Rebuttal and Argument from both Con
R4 - Deeper Analysis or up to the debator
R5 - Summary of the debate

I look forward for a great debate.


Nice to meet you, too, Ike-Jin-Park. Challenge accepted ;)

Ok, so, we are going to debate about "school runs". As far as what I know, "school run" is where parents drop off and pick up their child in school. In this debate, I have to cite reasons why "school run" should NOT be abolished, on my side as Con.

I just ask a little definition from you, on how you will define "school run", too, so that, I know where will I take my point. :) I suggest, you put it on the comment section, so that, round 2 may begin. :)

Thank you for challenging me on this debate. I also look forward for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1



As more educational institutions became available, parents were able to choose which school or kindergartens they want to send their kids to. Parents also wanted to protect their children from possible risks such as car accidents or abduction on their kids extended traveling time to schools. This is the most widely accepted cause for school runs. There is nothing fundamentally flawed in parental care towards a kid. However, question arises when this "parental care" causes too much problems socially and for individuals as well.

In this debate, I firmly argue that this parental care has caused too much harm that it has to be abolished. I have two arguments regarding this issue: social and individual. I will deliver each argument respectively on round this round and next round. Then in third round, I will provide clash analysis with summary and conclusion at the final round.

ARGUMENT 1: Social Issues (Harming others)

I have two sup-points under this category.

Sub-Point 1:
School run ironically is putting life of kids at risk. The purpose of school run in the first place is to protect children from potential danger on their way to schools. There have been precedents where students were abducted, attacked or encountered car accidents. Being concerned, more parents decided to send their kids to school themselves. This is proven in the case of England, where proportion of primary-aged children walking to school decreased from 61% to 50% between 1994 and 2004 [1]. Given from the fact that the statistical data was given about eight years ago (close to nine), there is a good reason to believe that the rate is even higher currently.
With so many cars in front of school, with limited parking space, school run results in havoc in school regions. This havoc eventually poses a greater threat than kids attending school without school run. Many newsletter articles, council officials and policemen urge that there is a higher risk of students being ran over by cars of other parents than students walking to school during these morning and afternoon chaos [2, 3, 4, and 5]. This also logically makes sense because an average elementary (primary) student or a kindergartener is easy to be missed by drivers. That is why there are many cases where small kids are accidently ran over by cars trying to park to accelerate. In such a crowded condition like gate of a school in the morning time, it is very dangerous for so many cars to be around with small kids trying to get off from cars.

The risk can be eliminated by abolishing school runs but using other safer, environmentally friendly and physically healthy alternatives such as gathering group of students to walk together under supervision of an adult (called "walking school bus" [3]), cycling on bicycle road, or an actual school bus that accommodates more people, saving environment as well.

School run was a remedy for possible risk that students might face on their way to school. However, this remedy is as risky as the original threat, or possibly even more risky. It is purposeless and harmful.

Sub-Point 2:
Besides from the fact that school run causes 8% of traffic congestion at the peak period (again, Britain), school runs also cause severe illegal parking problems as well. Parents park their cars on bus stops, yellow lines or zigzag lines. On this issue, PC Feather, governor at Wibsey Primary said "It is a massive problem. Just about every primary school now has got that type of issue." [2] There was also an incident in 2011, October where a camera car caught more than 30 illegal parking incidents done by parents on one a day in a small country located in Country Durham. Such frequent illegal actions result in roads being blocked for some while, further congestion in traffic and buses being delayed due to irresponsible parking on their stops. Even though this is not a huge problem that has to have immediate, we do know it is pretty widespread, viewing from the fact that majority of people in Britain wants school run to be abolished in their country and also from the quote above. There is also a benefit in abolishing school run, along with eliminating other harms that I will continue to elaborate throughout the debate.


The modern phenomenon, school run was meant to be a remedial solution for young students" exposure to potential risk while going to school. However, it is clear that the remedy ended up posing a worse threat to student communities. But not only this, by abolishing school run, we can also bring some benefits for traffic at the morning time will be gone and illegal parking problems around schools can also be solved as well. On my next round, I will focus on how school run can in fact be disadvantageous to the kids themselves. After that, I will explain how social issues merged with individual harms (which will be newly introduced) make abolition of school run necessary.




In this argument, I have construct both my stand and my argument, though to be honest, they seem to both have one thought: It is not the "school run" practice that makes the situation bad, rather, the people themselves.

If the justification of abolishing "school runs" is because of many children being hit because of rush hour, or because of too much traffic, solutions can be given for that.

Enforcing traffic rules in the school area is one of the solutions we can guarantee, not just enforcing, but STRICTLY enforcing it. To be more effective, make sure that the offender will be penalized.

Providing traffic enforcers in the predestrial lane can help. Students MUST be guided that they SHOULD cross the street there, not in any part of the road. While the children our crossing, an officer would not allow cars to go in. It is up to the officer how he(or she) will balance it.

On my stand, "school runs" is not the problem. What is needed here is discipline, because if to abolish school run, a tendency is that, kids can be abducted, as what have been said. Not all parents would agree on the "walking of students by group accompanied by an adult", for some are sensitive. Who knows, the adult himself/herself is the kidnapper.

Hiring school bus is good, but we can't be assure of it. I mean, how about if the bus is full?
Cycling towards school is also good (Its my attitude when we wear civilian clothes during "wash days"), but for children, not all children are good in cycling, and even when they know how to ride a bike, we cannot remove the possibility that they may fall, and sometimes, run over by cars. Even cyclist fall, dies when fall on highways, how much more of kids?

In conclusion: All of the "alternatives" given to "school run" is good, but it is not enough to abolish the "school run" practice.

All in all, "school run" should not be abolish, because it is not the problem.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to start off by offering some rebuttals to arguments that my opponent made, and then move on to my second half of the argumentation regarding individual harms.


The Con gave two of his own argument in his previous round. Those arguments were: a) how we can strictly enforce laws regarding school run, b) how traffic enforcers in pedestrian lane can help and c) possibility of alternatives failing in some specific situations. I will proceed in a systematic order.

Rebuttal 1: Strictly enforcing laws to prevent problems of school run
Firstly, this is very unrealistic. A law needs an enforcer to be served. However, as my citation [2] proved, the problem is very widespread, almost in every primary school in UK. I do not understand on what basis, Con believes that such regulation can be so easily carried out at peak-time of traffic when the situation it is already chaotic.
Secondly, even if under the assumption that countries will enforce strong laws, laws do not prevent the risk that school run poses because the main problem lies within the amount of school run. Such chaotic situation with vehicle is what causes the biggest problem with school run. Because there are so many cars around and so much students at a confided area, tragic situations where students are ran over accidently by cars happen. Just because we charge every illegal parker a huge amount of fine, it does not mean complicated traffic at peak-time will decrease. Stricter laws will not be practical in solving the main threat of school run as well as illegal parking problems. We need to enforce a method that will fundamentally eliminate the risk.

Rebuttal 2: Placing traffic enforcers in pedestrian lane
Countries already have this system where cars are only allowed to travel at certain time and where they need to stop and wait until pedestrians pass by. The system is called "traffic lights". This alternative that Con suggested actually supports a way that students can safely make their way to school once school runs are banned. There can be traffic enforcers in roads to ensure the safe journey of students, from home to school. I thank my opponent for providing me with another alternative to support my case. Regardless, this idea itself is very unrealistic and ineffective as well. There is not much of what traffic officer can do to prevent accidents that usually happen in the middle of crowds of cars, in a split second.

Rebuttal 3: Possibility of alternatives failing
Con gave very limited cases to generalize the danger of alternatives. His explanation to why school buses cannot be an alternative was that the bus can be full. I want to ask how the school bus systems work in other cases in other schools around the world. Nevertheless, I never claimed school bus to be the sole alternative. Con also marginalized adults accompanying the students by giving this claim those adults might be abductors. I do not understand on what basis, Con is claiming the possibility of abduction on this alternative. If Con is to pursue on this point, I ask for some statistics for example where this caused a bigger problem than the school run is currently. Con also regarded cycling as unsafe using two very hasty reasons: that not all students can ride bicycle well and that there is possibility of falling and dying from bicycles. Firstly, I have never suggested that all students should ride bike to school but that cycling can be one alternative out of many. Hence, his rebuttal that not everyone can ride bicycle well is irrelevant and is far too weak to undermine this alternative. Secondly, the negligible possibility of death due to cycling is not a possibility that only this alternative carry. Just about everything has that risk. This risk also exists in school run that requires students to be on car because it is also very possible that passengers encounter death due to car accidents. Hence, this risk that Con suggested cannot be classified as flaw of the alternative but a risk we undertake in our daily lives. Thus, none of my opponent"s attack on alternative is pertained.

ARGUMENT 2: Individual Issues

Now let me explain further harms of school run that make the abolition necessary and more of logical action to do. I have two sub-points to approach this case.

Sub-Point 1:
Travelling on car also takes away sizable portion of exercise time for children. In 2006 in UK, it has been estimated a quarter of adolescences are obese and this rate is still rising. [1] This situation is pretty severe and we need to find a solution to this. The same statistics provided that the reason for such steady increase in child obese rate is due to lack of exercise. Many things contribute in decreasing level of exercise and school run is undeniably one factor. Put simple, parental over-protection is partially reason for obesity rate. From another statistics, it has been surveyed that about half of the school run journeys are less than two miles which can be walked in less than 30 minutes, under an hour as a round trip. This time is an idealistic time to get some exercise that young students need. Dr. Grey, director of public health at Liverpool Primary Care Trust, also said that "Parents could prolong their children's lives and improve their general health by encouraging them to walk to school". [2]
We need to start solving child obese rate and banning school run and inducing students to choose a rather healthy and eco-friendly method can be the first step to achieve the aim.

Sub-Point 2:
As mentioned in my previous round, school run is a culprit that poses a social harm of illegal parking. This is not only socially downgrading but also individually bad for households as well. When parents park on bus stops, spaces for fire trucks, ambulances, pedestrian roads and even in front of school gates, this sets a very bad example for the students in the car. The future generation is basically watching their own parents committing socially harmful actions, thinking it is acceptable. Attempts to resist these offences are very often met with verbal abuses from parents as well as my citation [2] from my previous round shows. Students attend school not solely pursuing education but also for moral guidance. I consider it to be ironic that students are shown of bad examples from their parents on their way to school.


It is so clear that school run poses a great threat then walking to school or any other method to begin with. It has been proven that risk of children being ran over by another parents" cars around school is 40 times higher than risk of abduction. [2] But not only that, school run (or people performing school run, which means the exactly same thing) causes other social issues like traffic congestion and illegal parking. 1 out of 7 cars during rush hour is school running vehicles. [2] The harm of school run is not only limited to this but it also contributes in health issues and ends up setting bad example for the future generation. While school run brings so much complication, banning it brings benefits. Not only that those problems will be solved, but it has been surveyed many times that using means of physical exercise to reach school fosters a healthy exercising habit. To list other benefits, in short terms, researches indicate that students who used means of physical activity to reach school tend to be more alert and ready to learn more and thus achieve better academic results. On long term, it fosters students" independence and self-reliance in some cases that students walk without supervision. A practice that creates so many problems has to be abolished to benefit the majority. There is no reason not to ban something that causes loads of problems but brings numerous benefits at its abolition.




Pro's rebuttal leads me to take all his points into one general answer. But, I have to summarize his points and take it as a whole on my final point.

"Rebuttal 1: Strictly enforcing laws to prevent problems of school run"
Pro claimed that this is unrealistic, thus, it cannot protect child from school run cases.

"Rebuttal 2: Placing traffic enforcers in pedestrian lane"
Pro had pointed out that this is already done, still, is not effective.

"Rebuttal 3: Possibility of alternatives failing"
Its not more on failing, my point there is to give reason why we should retain school run or not abolish those.

Summary, as part of my rebuttal,
Removing school run is not a good decision, on my part, as it will minimize the protection of many children. As I had told, it is not school run that is a problem, but the people themselves. The system is good, but the people defies it.

Enforcing laws obviously needs an enforcer, and from my word "strict", it means, it should be followed, or else, penalize it harder. Placing traffic enforcers in the pedestrian lane is better than traffic lights, as traffic enforcer can easily chase those who violated the laws. Giving alternatives to school run is good, but it does not mean, we should remove school run.

Now, let me rebut on Pro's sub points:

Sub point 1:
School run is not the reason for child obesity. They have the choice whether to use cars or just walk. School run is not a factor for a person's health, though, it can affect, as said in the argument. Moreover, its not good to remove school run if the point would be that.

Sub point 2:
As have mentioned, school run is not the reason for those "undisciplined traditions", but those undisciplined people.

To summarize,
School run is still effective, and before I leave, I have to point out good reasons why school run should not be abolished:

1) School run is good for those who have far distances of their homes to the school
2) Traffic is normal, with or without school run, traffic jam and illegal parking practices would still occur
3) Not all parents would agree to abolish school run
4) Abolishing school run is to minimize the child's protection
5) School run is not the reason of child accidents, rather, the people themselves.
Debate Round No. 3


In this round, I would like to identify clashes in this debate and neutralize my opponent's attacks and argumentation.


Even before analyzing some clashes, I’d like to attack my opponent’s approach and technique. Firstly, he did not offer proper points and only at his third round, he started giving some of his own substantiated argument. His arguments in the second round were just rebuttal points contrary to my argument that I substantiated. I did not felt like it was a debate but more of opponent commenting on my points only. Secondly, he has not rebutted any of my points with proper statistical data or even attempted to undermine legitimacy of my arguments but only gave few minor hypothetical situations. That is not even close to a rebuttal because in rebuttals, it is expected for debaters to try to undermine the fundamental logic beneath each argument, not just show counter cases because in no debates, a side is required to show that their argument is correct in all cases but they are only required to prove the norm. Nothing can apply in every single situation and no one should be required to prove that something apply in every single situation. My opponent here believes that providing few minor counter-examples is a proper rebuttal against a case that is substantiated with facts and general logic. Thirdly, my opponent also seems to believe that denying a fundamental flaw in a problem is the best rebuttal. He has keep on arguing that school run is not fundamentally wrong but it is just that the people who are causing problems. First of all, at the beginning of Round Two, I have mentioned that there is no fundamental flaw. Secondly, my opponent in fact conceded and admitted that I am correcting in saying that people DO cause problems. Thirdly, this is neither an accepted nor a legitimate rebuttal because thinking it that way, nothing is wrong then. Let us assume that there is a debate on whether we should allow every single citizen to freely carry guns on streets only for self-defense and to protect their loved ones. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with self-defense or carrying around a gun in holsters. But as a result of passing this motion, if cross-fires happen every single block, can we possibly argue that gun permit is not fundamentally wrong but it is that the PEOPLE who are causing problems? The reason why there are certain limits about carrying guns on street is because the result turns out negative not really because self-defense is bad. The same logic applies to school run. School run itself is fundamentally healthy. Nevertheless, it causes many disadvantages and harms. For that reason, we are debating if we should ban it or not. Just because something is fundamentally unflawed, it does not mean it becomes completely from being banned. But my opponent seems to be misunderstood that fundamentally being unflawed means it cannot be touched whatsoever, regardless of what damages it causes. Denying a fundamental flaw of something problematic is not a legitimate rebuttal. In this debate, I have spared thousands and thousands of characters explaining some reasons why it is bad and for that reason, it has to be banned. From three attacks, I have shown you that my opponent cannot differentiate from rebuttals to arguments and from acceptable rebuttals to logical fallacies. I ask the voters to please keep this point in mind when this debate goes under voting period. I will now proceed in my clash analysis

Clash 1: Severity of problems
As a Con, my opponent was expected to negate that there is a problem with current situation or to at least to defend and lessen the severity of the situation. However, instead of doing what he was supposed to do, my opponent conceded that there is a problem but just that the problem is caused by humans not because of school runs. I thank my opponent for agreeing with me from the beginning of the debate. I wish to ask my opponent though, if it is not the humans, who are the other creatures that can cause problems. It definitely is and can only be the human who causes problem because school run itself cannot pose more danger to individual or to the society. To elaborate more on harms that school run cause due to existence of human being, I explained that social harms and individual harms are caused due to school runs that human beings do. Under social harm, I had two sub-points, that parents endanger more students in the process of school run and that traffic problems are caused by vehicles doing the action of school run. Under individual harm, I explained that school run is one contributing factor that constitutes the main reason why child obesity rate is increasing and how illegal parking and how parents’ disobedience to the law set an adversary example. Not realizing the severity of the situation, my opponent listed some reasons why school run might be useful in some cases at the end of his third round. However, I never claimed that school run is never useful. However, the essence of my argument was that school run causes more problems and it has reached a point where harm outweighs the benefit.

Clash 2: Necessity of abolition

Opponent sort of attacked the necessity of abolition at the middle of his Round Two and said that what is required is a discipline. Nevertheless, I have neutralized that argument in three layers. Firstly, I showed the further severity of the situation by giving how school run not only poses more threat but how students being driven to school are harmed. Secondly, I have shown how discipline will do no help in eliminating the threat caused by school run (which is bigger than the threat that made parents drive their children all the way to school) since the threat lies within the fact that so much car gathering at a confined area which is a problem that “disciplining” is not designed to solve (stricter laws and more enforcers do not directly cut down number of cars piling up each morning). Thirdly, I listed benefits we gain from banning school run. All in all, I have shown that school run is in fact a greater danger than letting students walk to schools but not only that it causes so much other problems, however, brings benefits when disposed. Those three reasons added up together makes abolition more reasonable and yet unavoidable consequence. Again, I want to restate that the harm outweighed the benefit of school run.

Clash 3: Validity of alternatives

I have given alternatives to school run such as cycling, school bus, walking school bus and walking. My opponent tried to undermine the validity of these alternatives by suggesting possibility of cyclers falling and dying on road, school buses being full and supervisor of walking school bus being kidnappers. I have successfully proven these claims to be wrong by pointing out that they are only minor situations which cannot possibly undermine my case. Some benefits in return of implementing these alternatives were also offered which at the end of the day, proved that not only replacing school run is necessary, but also beneficial and safe.

But even before examing who's argument dominated each clash, it is noteworthy that my opponent did not use any statistics or citation in rebuttal or argumentation.


I figured that few points my opponent gave at the end of his previous round were pretty irrelevant to big picture analysis of the debate so I excluded from clash analysis. I will make brief attacks.

Con's first argument can be dismissed due to the statistics that close to half of travles are less than 2 miles. His second point can be refuted by saying the fact that banning school run cannot fundamnetally solve illegal parking problem is not an exucse or explanation on why we shouldn't ban it. For thrid argument, I say that general opinion (70%) wants school run banned. Arguments four and five have been touched in this round.

That concludes my round. Back to you, Con



To conclude everything:
As said from the beginning, solving these must not be by just removing school run itself. Accidents are everywhere, and we cannot minimize it by just removing school run. Second, not all parents will agree. Third, not all children is capable of doing the alternatives mentioned by Pro.
Debate Round No. 4


In this final round, I will deal with how I accomplished my burden of proof. I will explain this by summarizing both sides’ case and then showing which side won each argument. In three layers, I will show that I ultimately fulfilled the burden of proof.

1. School run is causing problems

My opponent tried to prove that there is absolutely nothing wrong with school run because it is the fault of the people who are causing problems of school run. However, that is not a valid rebuttal since nothing is problematic if taken in that sense. It is always the humans that do a certain action that cause problem. Not only this, the Con argued that what is necessary is not abolition but stricter law. This means that Con is already agreeing that there is a problem.

There are a lot of problems with school run. It poses greater threat than students walking to school on their own due to crowdedness of the traffic at that time. Huge amount of illegal parking and traffic congestion blamed to school run. Not only this, school run is one part of the factor that decreases students’ exercise time. Observing and witnessing illegal parking and other offenses that occur in the process of school run also sets a bad example to the new generation.

Please keep in mind that the fact that school run poses greater threat than the risk of students walking to school is already enough to call the abolition of this measure.

2. Alternatives and benefits that follow

The Con tried to undermine the validity of my alternatives but it is very clear his attempt did not work. This was done in two ways: he gave highly generalized cases to prove my alternatives wrong and exaggerated the risk of the alternatives.

The contender argued that alternatives are invalid claiming that alternatives cannot replace school run. However, these measures are valid since about half of students who use the method of school run lives approximately 2 miles away from the school which can be walked in less than 30 minutes and cycled much faster. For other half, there are alternatives such as public transportation, subways, cycling and so on. The alternatives I suggested are clearly valid enough to replace school run when it is disposed.

My opponent also gave extreme cases to exaggerate danger of alternatives. For example, he argued that students might fall from the bike and probably end up losing their lives or supervisors of walking school bus being kidnappers. But I would like to clarify that this kind of minimal risk exists everywhere. Even when we use the method of school run, probability of accident exists. Hence, the risk that my opponent pointed out is not wrong but they cannot be described as the problem of the alternatives. Can we argue that because there is possibility of car blowing up due to terrorist attack, we should ban school run? No. That risk is minimal to begin with and is not the problem of school run but the risk we undertake in our lives.

When we abolish school run, we immediately have more students doing physical exercise to get to school. Not only that, 1/7 of the traffic at morning is likely to be gone. Student will tend to grow habit of exercising regularly because at least twice a day, they involuntarily exercise. But the best part is that the threat that students face each day drops dramatically. These are all the benefits that my opponent left out in the debate.

3. Reason that abolition becomes necessary

Down the bench in this debate, it has become very clear that school run that carried good intention ended up causing both individual and social harms. School run delays workers trying to get to work, decrease the time that students exercise, do not help in forming good exercise habit and furthermore, threat the lives of student in a greater degree than any other ways of going to school does. We should solve the problems and enjoy the collateral benefits. That can only be done by banning the exercise of school run since that is the origin of all these problems.

However, people are not generous. Parents will not voluntarily give up sending their children to school by car each day. The only way to stop this practice is if school run is forcefully abolished. If Con has a better alternative that solves all the problems and brings similar amount of benefit to everyone, I am happy to listen to Con. However, we can see that there is no other alternative. Putting a limitation to number of school run vehicles allowed each day? Who is going to monitor if the vehicle is allowed or not? With what standard, will we determine which are allowed and which are not? Will that fundamentally solve the problems? Slightly radical action that is convenient in regulating and is powerful has to come in place to respond immediately to some threats. For that reason, banning school run is inevitable and yet necessary.

Please vote Pro to help the society and to protect the children in many different ways.



MrDebitCredit0995 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by MrDebitCredit0995 5 years ago
Let us just based in on Wiki,

"The School Run is a modern phenomenon resulting from parents taking their children to school by car. Many parents park their cars in school parking lots and driveways to drop off and pick up their children at the appropriate times."
Posted by MrDebitCredit0995 5 years ago
Ok :) Let's begin! :D
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 5 years ago
lol im sorry.. I forgot about the definition of school run. I accept yours! ^^
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro put much more effort into his arguments. Con hardly even tried and forfeited the last round. Pro provided statistics that advanced his case and sourced them. Con had no sources. Con's arguments didn't address the issue directly enough, such as arguing that it simply needs to be enforced better.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF