The Instigator
asiansarentnerdy
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Xer
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Twitter is dumb.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Xer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,906 times Debate No: 8555
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (10)

 

asiansarentnerdy

Pro

Thank you to anyone that accepts this debate with me. I will make a case to argue that TWITTER IS DUMB! <--That will be the main point of this debate.

To start off, I have never really despised Twitter until two days ago until I actually made an account on there. I had always thought Twitter was a social networking site like Facebook or MySpace, which is inherently pointless but interesting and fun, but after making a Twitter, I realized that it is just plain stupid. Why? I will make my one point below.

==Twitter provides meaningless updates about people's lives that no one really cares about.==
You can only post a status with 140 characters or less. This means that meaningfull posts are eliminated, you can only update people with the meaningless aspects of your life. Even if its Oprah or Lance Armstrong who are posting the statuses, it STILL REMAINS POINTLESS. Who really cares if you have to go to the bathroom or have a dentist appointment at 3:00 on Saturday?
Here is Oprah's Twitter:
http://twitter.com...
Take a look at it and see for yourself the pointless posts about her going to Broadway and whatnot. I'm not ridiculing Oprah in anyway, rather I am just using her Twitter to make a point about the uselessness of Twitter.
Here is John Mayer's Twitter: http://twitter.com...
Look at both of these famous people's Twitters. Do we really care whether or not the food they eat tastes good or not?

Basically, Twitter provides us with meaningless little details about people's lives. It makes you feel like you're being stalked or something...especially if you're being followed by people you don't really know. Twitter is a HUGE waste of time, because again, who cares if you're grilling sausages out on the lawn? Seriously.

Thats it for now, and looking forward to the next round. :)
Xer

Con

Thank you for the debate, and good luck.

Pro provided one reason why "Twitter is Dumb." and that is "Twitter provides meaningless updates about people's lives that no one really cares about."
-My opponent failed to provide any definitions, so I will do that now.

Twitter - a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?
http://twitter.com...
dumb - (my own definition) not cool/stupid/useless
meaningless - without meaning, significance, purpose, or value; purposeless; insignificant
http://dictionary.reference.com...
no one - no person; not anyone; nobody
http://dictionary.reference.com...
really - genuinely or truly
http://dictionary.reference.com...
care(s) - To be concerned or interested
http://dictionary.reference.com...

"You can only post a status with 140 characters or less. This means that meaningfull posts are eliminated, you can only update people with the meaningless aspects of your life. Even if its Oprah or Lance Armstrong who are posting the statuses, it STILL REMAINS POINTLESS. Who really cares if you have to go to the bathroom or have a dentist appointment at 3:00 on Saturday?"
1. An old proverb says, "Good things come in small packages." The proverb basically means quality over quantity.
2. You may think that Oprah or Lance Armstrong tweeting about going to the bathroom or dentist is pointless, but to other people it is not. But what about the Oprah fans have been watching the Oprah Winfrey every episode since 1986. Or what about the Lance Armstrong fans who have followed him closely through each of his 7 Tour de France victories? These people obviously would not find these points pointless.
3. What if a post just said "My mom died.. so sad." That is only 21 characters, but a very meaningfull 21 characters.
4. What other way is there to follow your favorite celeb besides twitter? There is no other way.

"It makes you feel like you're being stalked or something...especially if you're being followed by people you don't really know."
-Umm... that is the point. By making your twitter account public, you acknowledge that people you do not know will be following you.

Twitter had been used extensively to cover popular events. They include:
- The 2008 U.S. presidential campaigns
- 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which eyewitnesses sent an estimated 80 tweets every 5 seconds as the situation unfolded
- Israel became the 1st government to have a worldwide press conference via twitter on December 30, 2008
- The first criminal prosecution arising from Twitter posts began in April 2009 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. (If twitter posts were meaningless, would someone be arrested for it?)
- In May 2009, astronauts used twitter to keep updates of their Hubble Space Telescope repair mission, the first team it was used in space.
- On May 23, Iran temporarily blocked social networking Web sites Facebook and Twitter, used in presidential campaigns by former Prime Minister Mir Hossein. (Once again, if twitter was meaningless, would the president of Iran block it?)
---And many, many more.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Pro said 'Twitter provides meaningless updates about people's lives that no one really cares about.'"
-Twitter has an estimated monthly traffic of 21.9 million people. But you said "no one no one really cares about [twitter]." 21.9 million people are obviously someone, they are not no one.
http://www.quantcast.com...

That is it for now. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate about why Twitter is dumb. I shall respond to his rebuttals in the numerical order in which he made them.

"1. An old proverb says, "Good things come in small packages." The proverb basically means quality over quantity."
-My opponent states that "good things come in small packages." This may be true, however, but what quality is there in the fact that you have to play tennis at 3:00? Or are eating Froot Loops for breakfast? These sort of posts are not uncommon on Twitter, and are simply unneeded information. Therefore, there is no quality in these sort of posts, and also, obviously, no quantity either.

"2. You may think that Oprah or Lance Armstrong tweeting about going to the bathroom or dentist is pointless, but to other people it is not. ...Or what about the Lance Armstrong fans who have followed him closely through each of his 7 Tour de France victories? These people obviously would not find these points pointless."
- Fans are just fans, and most of them are NOT crazy, obsessive people. Therefore, most people would not want to see anybody doing anything obscene, even if it is Lance Armstrong or Oprah Winfrey. If Ashton Kutcher pooped in someone's lawn, I'm pretty sure they would still think its gross and not touch it.

"3. What if a post just said "My mom died.. so sad." That is only 21 characters, but a very meaningfull 21 characters."
-The post that my opponent refers to is a sad, post, but it is NOT a very meaningful one. Look at the definition for meaningful: full of value, significance, or purpose. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) If your mother died, and all you could say is, "I'm so sad", I'm pretty sure that's not meaningful at all. A meaningful thing to say would be a long and very heartfelt message to your mother, not just 3 words.

"4. What other way is there to follow your favorite celeb besides twitter? There is no other way."
-You can follow them via blogs, entertainment magazines, etc. They provide more meaningful updates about the celebrity's lives, instead of just 140 letter statements, like "I just went to the bathroom."

"Umm... that is the point. By making your twitter account public, you acknowledge that people you do not know will be following you."
-Just because you make your account public doesn't mean you acknowlegde the fact that people you don't know are following you. I can make a Facebook, but that doesn't nessicarily mean I acknowlegde random people to be my friends.

"Twitter had been used extensively to cover popular events. They include:"
-Other better news sites, blogs, and magazines would no doubt provide a much more extensive coverage than you can convey only through 140 characters. And in reference to the point that my opponent made about Prime Minister Mir Hossein the whole point of someone blocking something is because it IS meaningless/useless. Would you block something of use? No, probably not. The whole point of blocking something is because it is too meaningless and distracts us from our daily tasks.

"Twitter has an estimated monthly traffic of 21.9 million people. But you said "no one really cares about [twitter]." 21.9 million people are obviously someone, they are not no one.
-Just because you join something or create an account on a certain website does not mean you have to CARE about it.

Basically, the point that I am trying to get across to the readers of this debate is that Twitter is a meaningless website. You can't post a 'heartfelt' message in only 140 characters or less. It only provides us with frivolous, meaningless, updates on people's lives. Its a social networking site that probably will not do well in the future, and most importantly, a HUGE waste of time.

I look forward to the next round. :)
Xer

Con

"My opponent states that "good things come in small packages." This may be true, however, but what quality is there in the fact that you have to play tennis at 3:00? Or are eating Froot Loops for breakfast? These sort of posts are not uncommon on Twitter, and are simply unneeded information. Therefore, there is no quality in these sort of posts, and also, obviously, no quantity either."
-If ALL the posts were unneeded information, then people would not go on to twitter. But 21.9 million people/month go on Twitter. So obviously people find the information needed, as they would not go on to Twitter if the posts were unneeded.

"Fans are just fans, and most of them are NOT crazy, obsessive people. Therefore, most people would not want to see anybody doing anything obscene, even if it is Lance Armstrong or Oprah Winfrey."
-If a fan watched every single one of Oprah's episodes since 1986 and watched every single second of Lance Armstrong's Tour de Frances, I would call them crazy obsessive people. Regardless, Twitter has nothing to do with watching people do obscene things, it is about reading and following a person's life.
-Lance Armstrong has 1,012,090 followers (1) and Oprah has 1,349,577 followers (2) on Twitter. These people obviously do not find Lance's and Oprah's posts meaningless if they took time out of their meaningful lives to subscribe.

"If Ashton Kutcher pooped in someone's lawn, I'm pretty sure they would still think its gross and not touch it."
-What's your point? You are not forced to touch people's poop by going on Twitter, just read their posts.
-Also, Ashton Kutcher has 2,018,230 followers (3) on Twitter.

"The post that my opponent refers to is a sad, post, but it is NOT a very meaningful one. Look at the definition for meaningful: full of value, significance, or purpose. ... If your mother died, and all you could say is, "I'm so sad", I'm pretty sure that's not meaningful at all. A meaningful thing to say would be a long and very heartfelt message to your mother, not just 3 words."
-My opponent apparently does not find a post about a loved one's death meaningful. To my opponent: if your principal came into your class in the middle of school and told you (in less than 140 characters) that a loved one had passed away, would you find his words "full of value, significance, or purpose"? Because I know I would.

"You can follow them via blogs, entertainment magazines, etc. They provide more meaningful updates about the celebrity's lives, instead of just 140 letter statements, like "I just went to the bathroom."
-You can follow celebs in-depth with blogs and magazines, but Twitter provides users the oppurtunity to track a celeb's life down to the minute. In blogs and magazines, you just get the big story. But with Twitter, you can feel personal with the celeb.

"Just because you make your account public doesn't mean you acknowlegde the fact that people you don't know are following you. I can make a Facebook, but that doesn't nessicarily mean I acknowlegde random people to be my friends."
-Actually, you do acnowledge that. You have the oppurtunity to set your account to public or private. Also, on Facebook, you do have the opportunity to acnowledge random people as friends, you can either "Accept" or "Reject" them as friends. You are not forced to be friends/followed by random people if you don't want to be.

"Other better news sites, blogs, and magazines would no doubt provide a much more extensive coverage than you can convey only through 140 characters."
-Like I said before, you get the big story with blogs and mags, but you get down to the minute updates with Twitter.

"And in reference to the point that my opponent made about Prime Minister Mir Hossein the whole point of someone blocking something is because it IS meaningless/useless. Would you block something of use? No, probably not. The whole point of blocking something is because it is too meaningless and distracts us from our daily tasks."
-Actually, Iran blocked Twitter because former Prime Minister Mir Hossein was using Twitter for his presidential campaigns. You asked "Would you block something of use?", and the answer is that current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would definitely block a site that could hurt his chances of winning the presidency. (4)

"Just because you join something or create an account on a certain website does not mean you have to CARE about it."
-For the most part, yes it does. Why else would you join besides caring about Twitter. If a person did not care about Twitter, then why would they sign up? In general, when people join something, they care about that something, the same goes for Twitter.

"Basically, the point that I am trying to get across to the readers of this debate is that Twitter is a meaningless website. You can't post a 'heartfelt' message in only 140 characters or less. It only provides us with frivolous, meaningless, updates on people's lives. Its a social networking site that probably will not do well in the future, and most importantly, a HUGE waste of time."
-All lies. I have proved everything that Pro has said as lies. Twitter is a meaningful website that is (very) not dumb.

---Sources---
(1) http://m.twitter.com...
(2) http://twitter.com...
(3) http://twitter.com...
(4) http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
asiansarentnerdy

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding to this debate.

"-If ALL the posts were unneeded information, then people would not go on to twitter. But 21.9 million people/month go on Twitter. So obviously people find the information needed, as they would not go on to Twitter if the posts were unneeded."
As I previously stated in Round 2, just because you use something does not think that you think it is necessary. Do billions of people listen to music because they think that it is necesscary? Do billions of people go on Facebook everyday because they think that it is necesscary? No. They can use something but think its completelty dumb.

"-If a fan watched every single one of Oprah's episodes since 1986 and watched every single second of Lance Armstrong's Tour de Frances, I would call them crazy obsessive people. Regardless, Twitter has nothing to do with watching people do obscene things, it is about reading and following a person's life."
--Just because you watch an episode everyday does not make you obsessed. It just means that you like the show. Obsessed is going WAY overboard, like praying in front of an Oprah shrine in your room or something. And what I meant through my "crazy-obsessive point" is that even if the person is a celebrity, we still don't really care if they are going to their son's Boy Scout meeting or something like that.
"-Lance Armstrong has 1,012,090 followers (1) and Oprah has 1,349,577 followers (2) on Twitter. These people obviously do not find Lance's and Oprah's posts meaningless if they took time out of their meaningful lives to subscribe."
--Subscribing takes a few seconds to do, so we as people just simply click the follow or subscribe button whenever we feel like it. This means that you don't really put a lot of thought into subsribing or favoriting something, even if it is useless. From personal experience, I have favorited ALOT of videos on YouTube, but does that mean I really enjoy every single one of them? No, we just favorite things on an impulse and don't put alot of thought into it, so following somebody on Twitter or favoriting videos on Youtube are not done with a lot of thought, and can be useless.

-My opponent apparently does not find a post about a loved one's death meaningful. To my opponent: if your principal came into your class in the middle of school and told you (in less than 140 characters) that a loved one had passed away, would you find his words "full of value, significance, or purpose"? Because I know I would."
--Yes, but this is only because you are very close to your mother. It would be hard for an outsider to be moved by those words, because they would hardly know your mother. They might feel pity and feel bad for you, but it would be hard for them to be moved by those words. However, if you present to them a very touching and MEANINGFUL speech about your mother, then I'm sure they would be definitely moved. Its very hard to convey heartfelt messages in 140 characters or less, as you must do on Twitter.

"-You can follow celebs in-depth with blogs and magazines, but Twitter provides users the oppurtunity to track a celeb's life down to the minute. In blogs and magazines, you just get the big story. But with Twitter, you can feel personal with the celeb."
---Theres nothing personal about finding out what the celebrity does in their daily lives, because everyone one way or another does those same things throughout the day. The big story is what is interesting, and therefore enticing to us as the audience, the viewers. Why else do you think major news magazines don't report celebrities going to a family meeting or something along those lines? The small things are just unneeded details, it is the big things that matter, and therefore, important.

"-Actually, you do acnowledge that. You have the oppurtunity to set your account to public or private. Also, on Facebook, you do have the opportunity to acnowledge random people as friends, you can either "Accept" or "Reject" them as friends. You are not forced to be friends/followed by random people if you don't want to be."
--Yes but on Twitter, you don't have that option. Its very strange to be followed by people you don't know.

"-Like I said before, you get the big story with blogs and mags, but you get down to the minute updates with Twitter."
--As I have successfully conveyed through one of my points above, the bigger story is the better.

"-Actually, Iran blocked Twitter because former Prime Minister Mir Hossein was using Twitter for his presidential campaigns. You asked "Would you block something of use?", and the answer is that current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would definitely block a site that could hurt his chances of winning the presidency. (4)"
--Exactly, it didn't matter whether or not the President blocked Twitter because it was a useless social networking site. And even if he did use Twitter for his presidential campaigns, it wouldn't have helped much, I'm sure. It could bring him a few followers, but compared to the rest of the Iran population that doesn't use Twitter, that small percentage is miniscule and could not possible change the outcome of the election.

"-For the most part, yes it does. Why else would you join besides caring about Twitter. If a person did not care about Twitter, then why would they sign up? In general, when people join something, they care about that something, the same goes for Twitter."
--People don't join something ONLY because they care about it. For the majority of the time they join something to test it out, and if they like it, they stay, and if they don't like it, they will probably just leave their account there and never use it. Therefore, they don't have to CARE about something to join it, they join it to test it out and see if its well suited for them.

"-All lies. I have proved everything that Pro has said as lies. Twitter is a meaningful website that is (very) not dumb."
How flagrant for my opponent to claim that everything that I have said thus far is a lie. This is a debate, and we argue over opinions.

I have successfully rebutted my opponent's points and have affirmed my own. Vote Pro, because Twitter is dumb. ;)
Xer

Con

"As I previously stated in Round 2, just because you use something does not think that you think it is necessary. Do billions of people listen to music because they think that it is necesscary? Do billions of people go on Facebook everyday because they think that it is necesscary? No. They can use something but think its completelty dumb."
-The resolution isn't about Twitter being necessary. It is about whether Twitter is dumb or not. And if millions of people go on Twitter, they obviously do not think Twitter is dumb.

"Just because you watch an episode everyday does not make you obsessed. It just means that you like the show. Obsessed is going WAY overboard, like praying in front of an Oprah shrine in your room or something. And what I meant through my "crazy-obsessive point" is that even if the person is a celebrity, we still don't really care if they are going to their son's Boy Scout meeting or something like that."
-If people didn't care... they wouldn't subscribe... that simple.

"Subscribing takes a few seconds to do, so we as people just simply click the follow or subscribe button whenever we feel like it. This means that you don't really put a lot of thought into subsribing or favoriting something, even if it is useless. From personal experience, I have favorited ALOT of videos on YouTube, but does that mean I really enjoy every single one of them? No, we just favorite things on an impulse and don't put alot of thought into it, so following somebody on Twitter or favoriting videos on Youtube are not done with a lot of thought, and can be useless."
-Your rebuttal does not make sense. You're saying that when people subscribe or favorite something, they don't care about it. If people didn't care about it, they wouldn't subscribe. Pretty simple concept to me.

"Yes, but this is only because you are very close to your mother. It would be hard for an outsider to be moved by those words, because they would hardly know your mother. They might feel pity and feel bad for you, but it would be hard for them to be moved by those words. However, if you present to them a very touching and MEANINGFUL speech about your mother, then I'm sure they would be definitely moved. Its very hard to convey heartfelt messages in 140 characters or less, as you must do on Twitter."
-You said: "They might feel pity and feel bad for you..." To me, this would be caring. If someone feels pity for you, they obviously care about you.
-Also, you don't think the your classmates would care that your mother died? If the teacher came in and said "asiansarentnerdy's mom died", do you think your classmates would care. I think so.

"Theres nothing personal about finding out what the celebrity does in their daily lives"
-Huh? If you're constantly getting updated on a celebrities every step, that is personal. Knowing where a celebrity is at a certain time is very personal too.

"The big story is what is interesting, and therefore enticing to us as the audience, the viewers. Why else do you think major news magazines don't report celebrities going to a family meeting or something along those lines? The small things are just unneeded details, it is the big things that matter, and therefore, important."
-We are not debating whether Blogs or Mags are better than Twitter. We are debating whether or not Twitter is dumb. Also, the 21.9 million people who go on Twitter every month find Twitter interesting, and enticing.

"Yes but on Twitter, you don't have that option. Its very strange to be followed by people you don't know."
-Wrong again, you can set profiles to public or private.

"As I have successfully conveyed through one of my points above, the bigger story is the better."
-Apparently, you don't understand the resolution. The big story may in fact be better than Twitter, but that does not make Twitter dumb.

"Exactly, it didn't matter whether or not the President blocked Twitter because it was a useless social networking site. And even if he did use Twitter for his presidential campaigns, it wouldn't have helped much, I'm sure. It could bring him a few followers, but compared to the rest of the Iran population that doesn't use Twitter, that small percentage is miniscule and could not possible change the outcome of the election."
-What are you talking about? A President of a country wouldn't block a site just for being dumb. He blocked it for a presidential campaign; to help himself out. Regardless of how much it helped him or not, he still blocked it because it was hurting him somewhat.

"People don't join something ONLY because they care about it. For the majority of the time they join something to test it out, and if they like it, they stay, and if they don't like it, they will probably just leave their account there and never use it. Therefore, they don't have to CARE about something to join it, they join it to test it out and see if its well suited for them."
-Once again, my opponent is making the accusation that the majority of people do not care about something they sign up for. She has provided no evidence of this besides her saying that she herself favorites a lot of youtube videos, but doesn't really care about them. This may be true, but does not mean that every single person does the same exact thing as you.

"How flagrant for my opponent to claim that everything that I have said thus far is a lie. This is a debate, and we argue over opinions."
-I was being a wee bit sarcastic, but my opponent missed it. Oh well...

"I have successfully rebutted my opponent's points and have affirmed my own. Vote Pro, because Twitter is dumb. ;)"
-Nope. The only thing you have proved is that Blogs and Mags may be better than Twitter, which does not relate to the resolution. And you also said that people don't care about things they favorite, with no evidence. My opponent has failed to prove Twitter is dumb or counter any of my arguments. Therefore, vote Con, because Twitter is not dumb. ;)
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Had a tough time deciding this debate. Both sides put very good arguments forward. I split the vote. I agreed with pro before the debate and after the debate. The word twitter makes my skin crawl and no man worth his salt would have something called twitter in his box of toys. Twitter is just another place to waste your life texting. But it does have some merit in that it allows quick messages, but then again doesn't a cell phone? Why pay for both services. Twitter is dumb, but con made convincing arguments for people who like dumb things so they don't think it is dumb.
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Just a little joke there, guys =D
Posted by asiansarentnerdy 8 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
Entertainment is good, too...but unfortunately, I must agree with you on that one, Nags. :\
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
"Con makes good points, but Pro's quotes are more enjoyable. This may be a close one..."
-The winner of debates makes the best points, not the most enjoyable quotes.....
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
"who cares if you're grilling sausages out on the lawn?"

Con makes good points, but Pro's quotes are more enjoyable. This may be a close one...
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
It is. haha
Posted by asiansarentnerdy 8 years ago
asiansarentnerdy
It's you...>.>
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 GeoLaureate8 8 years ago
GeoLaureate8
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by slobodow 8 years ago
slobodow
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 Lt.Zubin 8 years ago
Lt.Zubin
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 Brock_Meyer 8 years ago
Brock_Meyer
asiansarentnerdyXerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15