The Instigator
james_muic
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Universities that are caught stealing software should be excluded from Cork 2008/2009 world's debate

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 10 votes the winner is...
james_muic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,607 times Debate No: 5715
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (10)

 

james_muic

Pro

A university that steals software should be excluded from a prestigious event like the Cork World's 2009, because it gives credibility to the offending university, and it devalues the core principle, idea, that you do not steal! If the university is allowed to participate, what does that say to the other universities that save their money and buy legal versions of software? It says hahah you BIG lollypop. Welcoming the offending university as an equal will only reinforce their behavior/attitude towards this act of theft. Sanctioning /isolating them will give the offending university the opportunity to reassess its behavior, and perhaps come to the conclusion that they must stop or they will not be able to play with their friends. It has worked in Libya, and most recently, North Korea.

Allowing the university to continue with this objectionable behavior causes social harms, such as convincing impressionable students that using pirated software is ok! The second premise chips away at a student's attitude towards intellectual property rights. The university has an obligation to act as a role model for young and impressionable minds, and when it fails to do so, students will copy/replicate the behavior that they witness.

This creates a massive market for groups that pirate DVD's, CD's, and Software. The economic loss, worldwide, is in the billions of dollars.

For these reasons, this motion must stand!
wjmelements

Con

I negate the following resolution: "Universities that are caught stealing software should be excluded from Cork 2008/2009 world's debate"

Before negating my opponent's claims, I will propose my point of view.

1. This is not the proper way to punish the universities.
2. To do so would be unfair to the sutdents.

We are not taking into effect whether the university was wrongly accused or found guilty wrongfully. For the interest of saving time, I will address the topic as if the university has been found to be guilty.

1. If the university ahs been found guilty, then
A) it must have been the faculty of the universtiy or the higher positions within the university that chose to do this.

If so, then the faculty should be fired and fined accordingly. This method not only serves justice, but also discourages future incidences and lets the student body know that it isn't tolerated.

B) a portion of the student body was found guilty of software piracy.

If so, then the appropriate students should be found and expelled and the neccessary fines should be imposed. This method also serves justice, discourages future incidences and lets the student body know that piracy isn't tolerated.

However, to follow the resolution would not do such a thing. It unfairly punishes the students, which leads me to my second point:

2. To do so would be unfair to the students.

So far, this is all I could find on the Cork World Debates : http://worlddebating.blogspot.com...

It does seem that it is the student body that competes in these debates.
Folowing my proposal, it would be the law abiding students and faculty that still are associated with the university.
However, not letting these people participate in the Cork World Debates would be unfair to them. That is a form of group punishment, and a very hard form at that, because it does not even punish anyone that has done any wrong.

In conclusion, to prevent students from attenting the Cork World Debates would be unfair and would not discourage piracy.
Debate Round No. 1
james_muic

Pro

In this round I am going to rebut the opposition on their two points, and then reaffirm the government's case.

1st, Rebuttal

1)Opp / This is not the proper way to punish the universities

The opposition claims that the responsible parties should be tracked down and dealt with, like the dirty dogs they are. The government concedes this to the opposition, as being the right thing to do, in some geographic locations around the world. However, there are parts of this world that make it very hard to hold people accountable for their actions, such as the current border skirmishes going on between Thailand and Cambodia. Different cultures look at the concept of software theft differently. Getting a clear and concise conviction is extremely hard to do, if not impossible, in certain countries. Another example of holding people accountable would be the case of Anwar Ibrahim, former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. No one has held the Malaysian government accountable for the reckless attacks that caused his incarceration, which consequently were over-turned.

What will the opposition do, if it is near impossible, to hold anyone accountable for these selfish acts, because the University is in country where there is a constitutional monarchy, and the school in question, is under Royal Patronage?
What will the opposition do if the same people who are stealing the software are also the ones in a position to do something about it?

The opposition is looking at this as debate in terms of a punishment for a bad-deed committed. Now, if it was a simple as firing the person/s responsible, then the government would agree with the opposition, and feel that punishing the school is the wrong thing to do, but the government is looking at this debate as a way to hold people accountable for their actions, and force a change in behavior. Just because someone is guilty of committing a crime doesn't mean they are going to stop? If you're dealing smack on the streets and get busted, what's the first thing that you are going to do when your lawyer gets you bail? You're going to deal more smack, so you can afford to pay your high priced lawyer to get you off on technicalities.

The United States tried to hold Kim Jong il responsible for the direction of his government, and look where that got them? Nowhere! The United States finally came to their senses and began trade embargos, and other types of isolation tactics that have resulted in the current cooperation, and the intended de-listing from the countries that sponsor terrorism.

For these reasons, the opposition's first point fails!

2nd, Rebuttal

2)Opp / To do so would be unfair to the students

Collateral damage is inevitable in war. As Stalin once said, "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs." The government concedes to the opposition that some of the students will suffer, but you must ask the question, good for the many, or good for the few? There are three teams, comprised of two debaters a-piece, on average, that competing universities will send to Cork Worlds Debate 2009. If a university has 10,000 students, and only ten of them can't go, please explain how the other 9,990 students will suffer? Even better than that, who many students at that university would even know that a debate club exists?

Debate is not something that every single student participates in, and the message that not being allowed to attend the most prestigious debate event, in the world, would certainly register on the radar of the same people stealing the software, financing the debate club, and running the university.
For these reasons, the opposition's second point fails!

Back to the government's case:

As I clearly stated in my opening arguments, this debate is about universities that continue to violate the rules after they have been found guilty, and should be excluded from a prestigious event like the Cork worlds 2009 in an attempt to change their behavior.

When you look for role models in society, maybe the names of Terry Fox, Dr. King, and Gandhi come to mind. These people are without-question, great role models, but that is not their job. Dr. King's job was to fight against injustice. Terry Fox's job was to inspire people, and Gandhi's job was to defeat the British.
The job of a university is to educate its students. That education includes good morals and ethics. When the university steals software what does that say to the students? It says that stealing is ok! What happens to a society that teaches its students that stealing is ok?

The economic impact is incalculable. Let's ask ourselves some commonsense questions. If one country teaches its students that stealing software is wrong, and another country teaches them that it is ok, which one is more likely to steal software? Stolen software hurts the manufactures, and can lead to massive layoffs as a consequence.

For these reasons, the government's case stands strong!
wjmelements

Con

My opponent is one of the few people I have debated recently who has not yet forfeited a round. I am proud of him.

My opponent has clarified the debate:
"When the university steals software what does that say to the students?"
Therefore, I am now assuming that it is a debate saying if the faculty has stolen software, then the students should not be able to go to the tournament.

1. My opponent has agreed with the notion that punishing the one's responsible instead of the whole University, except for a certain type of situation.
My opponent has brought up a point that governments of some third world and develping countries steal software and are not held responsible because of the government, etc. However, my opponent has also gave the proper solution to that issue, too.

"The United States finally came to their senses and began trade embargos, and other types of isolation tactics that have resulted in the current cooperation, and the intended de-listing from the countries that sponsor terrorism."

This is in essance the correct way to pressure such countries into signing onto the international copyright laws, which make this illegal. Countries that sign and do not enforce these laws will face the economic burden of an embargo.
And this, as opposed to preventing students of the world from participating in this prominent debate, is another way to properly resolve this issue.

There are other ways to resolve this issue other than punishing the group, as my opponent has conceded.

2. My opponent seems to be arguing my case.
"The government concedes to the opposition that some of the students will suffer, but you must ask the question, good for the many, or good for the few? There are three teams, comprised of two debaters a-piece, on average, that competing universities will send to Cork Worlds Debate 2009. If a university has 10,000 students, and only ten of them can't go, please explain how the other 9,990 students will suffer? Even better than that, who many students at that university would even know that a debate club exists?"

The topic is whether the University, which is a body of students, should be excluded from a prominent debate tournament because people on the team were stealing software. My opponent seems to think that only ten of these students woud not be able to attend should the resolution stand. However, should the resolution stand, it would be the whole student body that would not be able to go shoud the resolution stand. It would be, "...and none of them can go".

In addition, my opponent is arguing my case:
"Debate is not something that every single student participates in, and the message that not being allowed to attend the most prestigious debate event, in the world, would certainly register on the radar of the same people stealing the software, financing the debate club, and running the university.
For these reasons, the opposition's second point fails!"

Exactly! There is a great chance that this punishment would not effect those guilty, but those those innocent. The debate team would suffer and it is unfair to them when they are not the one's responsible. My second point stands and has been conceded.

To my opponent's points:
"As I clearly stated in my opening arguments, this debate is about universities that continue to violate the rules after they have been found guilty, and should be excluded from a prestigious event like the Cork worlds 2009 in an attempt to change their behavior."

Yes, this is the debate.

As my points stand, there are other ways to punish the University and this particular proposal is harmful to the students.

So, my opponent's arguments against stealing:
"The job of a university is to educate its students. That education includes good morals and ethics. When the university steals software what does that say to the students? It says that stealing is ok! What happens to a society that teaches its students that stealing is ok?"
This stand is void to my opponent's case because we agree that stealing is harmful to society and the world. However, this does not defend the resolution.

"The economic impact is incalculable. Let's ask ourselves some commonsense questions. If one country teaches its students that stealing software is wrong, and another country teaches them that it is ok, which one is more likely to steal software? Stolen software hurts the manufactures, and can lead to massive layoffs as a consequence."
Same here as above.

"For these reasons, the government's case stands strong!"
Those reasons did not support your case, they supported both cases and they are neutral arguments.

The proposal that a University be banned from this prominent debate is an improper way to punish thieves and is not the best way to punish software pirates.
For these reasons, you should vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
james_muic

Pro

In this final round, I am going to rebut the opposition's case, point out the major clashes in the debate, and then reaffirm the government's case.

1ST, Rebuttal:

The opposition is doing one of two things in this debate. Either they are not reading what the government has written, or they are intentionally trying to misrepresent/misinform. This is a common tactic for the losing side. When they realize that there is no hope they try to muddle things up in the hopes of confusing people. Another tactic that the opposition has decided to use is "cutting and pasting" most of what the government has written, in an attempt to make their selves look more substantiated; but in fact, 70% of the opposition's second round came from "cutting and pasting" the governments words! This shows that the opposition is out of words, so they need to cut and paste from the government!

2ND, Rebuttal:

Moving along, the opposition tries to falsely convince the reader that the people who are perpetuating the software theft, at the university, will not be punished by the government's proposal, but this is found to be lacking any type of logical analysis. If the same people, who are using pirated software, are also the ones paying for the debate club's expenses, and who will also be the ones to benefit from the association with such a prestigious event, such as the Cork Worlds 2009, then they will in fact suffer a blow to their reputation. Why does a university agree to fully finance a debate club in the first place? Is it because they have nothing better to do with the money? They send students to compete in order to garner more respect/prestige/bragging rights!! If they are banned from this competition, there will be no prestige! There will be no respect! There will be no bragging rights!

3RD, Rebuttal:

Where is the opposition's proposal? They are attacking the government, but they don't provide any details on how they would deal with the continued use of stolen software. They say that they would fire and fine the guilty people, but as the government has shown, that is near impossible to accomplish in different parts of the world. The opposition's proposal of firing and fining, would only work in countries that have very little corruption. Not only that, but how does the opposition deal with the perpetrators when they are the ones in a position to ask questions, and fire people? The opposition has no idea how to fix the problem!

4Th, Rebuttal:

The opposition misrepresented the government when they said "governments of some third world and developing countries steal software and are not held responsible." The government has never implied, directly or indirectly, that a third world government is stealing software, and the opposition goes onto say that an embargo from another country would be a better stance to take. How can the opposition claim that group-punishment will not work on a university, but then turn around and claim that it would work on the entire country, in terms of an embargo? This is a major contradiction from the opposition's side. The suggestion, from the opposition, that a country-to-country embargo would be a way to "properly resolve the issue," shows how completely out of touch they are.

5th, Rebuttal:

How many students will actually suffer? The opposition claims that the entire student body will be punished, but this is 100% false. In order to make that assertion, it would have to be obvious that they all participated in debate, which they don't. If only 10 students participate in debate and will be going to Cork World's 2009, and the university has 10,000 students total, then how is it that the other 9,990 will suffer? The opposition has failed, miserably, to prove the damage done to the remaining student body.

6th, Rebuttal:

The opposition fails to address the economic impact raised by the government. The government's position that students will follow the actions of their university and procure pirated software, which leads to economic loss for the manufacturers, must stand. It will be too late for the opposition to deal with the economic point in their whip reply. It should have come from the Leader of Opposition, or at the very least, the Deputy leader of opposition.

1st, Clash Point: Changing behavior

The first clash in this debate is about whether or not sanctioning/isolating a group would be more affective at changing behavior. The government has shown from the very beginning that some countries are unreliable when it comes to holding people responsible. Isolating the university from a prestigious event would be a way to send the message that you cannot act with impunity. The opposition wants to fire the people who did it. That's a great idea for half of the world, what about the other half? Maybe the opposition would impose a country-to-country embargo just to stop one university? I can see the headlines now "The United Kingdom has decided to stop all trade, and will begin patrols effective immediately." The idea of group-punishment is as old, as time its self. It is used in the foreign policy of all UN Security Council members, and it is used by most militaries around the world. Isolating/sanctioning has worked in Libya and North Korea, just to name a few.

This Clash Point clearly goes to the government!

2nd, Clash Point: Good for the many, or good for the few?

The government has been saying that it is necessary to punish a few innocent people in order to achieve their ultimate goal. Yes it is sad that the innocence must pay a price, but that is life. Every time there is war, innocent people die. You can call it bad luck, collateral damage, bad intelligence, bad-Karma, whatever. There is no way of getting around it. In the opposition's perfect little world, they could just go around and arrest people, but the rest of us live in a place called reality. In reality, ugly things are sometimes necessary. In the government's case, nobody dies or gets hit with a phosphorous grenade; they are just prevented from attending a prestigious event. The world's debate is only one competition. There are plenty of other competitions that the university can still attend. The point that the government is trying to make is that the World's Debate is the MOST PRESTIGIOUS event of its kind, and being prevented from attending it would cause the people who are financing the debate club, stealing the software, and running the university, to reassess their behavior. It will send the message that you cannot act with impunity!

For these reasons the second clash point goes to the government!

Recap of debate:

The government wants to use isolation as a way to change inappropriate behavior. The government has shown that it works at a global level. The government has also shown that the good of the many out-weighs the suffering of the few.

The opposition wants to arrest everyone, and in places where they can't arrest anyone, they want to impose a country-to-country embargo that would destroy lives and cause people to go hungry!

For all of the above, the government absolutely crushes the opposition!! There should be a 6 to 8 point margin in favor of the government.

Peace out
wjmelements

Con

I will now respond to my opponent.
1st Rebuttal:
I was quoting what seemed to be your main points and then refuting them. Yes, this is a common tactic in debate. I also did my best to interpret your arguments in the last round.

2nd and 3rd Rebuttal:
Again, I will restate my alternative. If the ones who are priting the software are found guilty, then they will suffer an even harsher blow to their reputation. Many ofthem would lose their jobs. Should no justice be served because of poor justice in the country of which the University is in, then internation trade could be used as a weapon to pressure the justice.

Specifically 2nd:
Therefore, the best way to ruin the respect of the software pirates is to make ruin their public image in this mattter rather than ban them from this debate.

Specifically 3rd:
"The opposition's proposal of firing and fining, would only work in countries that have very little corruption. Not only that, but how does the opposition deal with the perpetrators when they are the ones in a position to ask questions, and fire people? The opposition has no idea how to fix the problem!"
To restate the point above, international infamy decreases the likelihood of a potential student looking into attending that particular university. This alone would apply pressure against corrupt universities.

4th Rebuttal:
My proposal of an international embargo was for the countries who refuse to investigate, discourage, and incriminate piracy. This is not a contradiction becuase it is not group punishment; it is the punishment solely of those responsible. My proposal that a university not be further punished after all of the guilty ones are removed was directed at such governments that do investigate, discourage, and incriminate software pirates. An embargo on those "perpetrators when they are the ones in a position to ask questions, and fire people" would peacefully pressure those governments to investigate, discourage, and incriminate piracy.

5th Rebuttal:

Again, you are arguing my point. The resolution of preventing priating universities from attending this debate does not target the pirates and only hurts the best of the student body that would be participating in this debate.

6th Rebuttal:
Correct! Both the PRO and CON agree that pirating software is bad and harmful in many ways. This is a neutral argument. The debate is not over whether piracy is bad and has negative effects; it is over whether or not software-pirating universities should be allowed at the Cork debates.

1st clash:
"The United Kingdom has decided to stop all trade, and will begin patrols effective immediately."
The embargo proposal was for countries that do not punish piracy. The U. K. does. http://bigblog.com...
A country would not stop all trade, just all trade with a select few countries. Also, note that it does work in third world countries as an economic burden: "Isolating/sanctioning has worked in Libya and North Korea, just to name a few."

Side note:
"This Clash Point clearly goes to the government!" I am unsure who you are referring to as the government.
"The point that the government is trying to make" Are you the government? Kind of odd. Which country are you referring to?
"In the government's case, nobody dies or gets hit with a phosphorous grenade; they are just prevented from attending a prestigious event." Or is it me? What country?
Back to the debate.

2nd Clash:

a) No one government will go around the world policing everybody. Each country will be responsibe for its own pirates. Those who do not show this responsibitily will be sanctioned against until they do.

b) If there are many other debates, then not being able to go to the Cork one will not effect the decision of any debate club sponsors of whether or not to fund the club. The university just won't go to that one and go on with its merry way. No behavior will be changed.

Arguing against my opponent's recap of the debate:
"The government wants to use isolation as a way to change inappropriate behavior. The government has shown that it works at a global level. The government has also shown that the good of the many out-weighs the suffering of the few."
This supports my argument, which states that we should not trade with countries that steal software in order to pressure such pro-piracy governments into discouraging, investigating, and incriminating criminals, more than it supports my opponent's argument, which says that isolating universites from one debate tournament will influence them to change their ways.

"The opposition wants to arrest everyone, and in places where they can't arrest anyone, they want to impose a country-to-country embargo that would destroy lives and cause people to go hungry!"
No, I want countries to police themselves of piracy. Countries that do not police themselves will be hit will a burden of an international trade block until they do.
Also, if people were to start to starve, they wouldn't just sit around; they'd figure out who's responsible. If a revolt would eliminate pircay, then my proposition has done more harm than good.
Also, as the point brought up by my opponent states,

"...this objectionable behavior causes social harms, such as convincing impressionable students that using pirated software is ok! The second premise chips away at a student's attitude towards intellectual property rights. The university has an obligation to act as a role model for young and impressionable minds, and when it fails to do so, students will copy/replicate the behavior that they witness.

This creates a massive market for groups that pirate DVD's, CD's, and Software. The economic loss, worldwide, is in the billions of dollars."

If this piracy movement continues and expands, it could eventually lead to a depression.

Therefore, piracy must be stopped.

My recap of this debate:

1. It is clear that banning a universities from this debate harms the students attending this university that are not guilty of software piracy.

2. It is even clearer that banning the universites will not discourage piracy, and other methods are more appropriate.

For these reasons, you have no choice but to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by C21 8 years ago
C21
Wjmelements did not figure out until the Third Round that the proposition side was referring to its self as government? Yikes!! Con, were you really tired when you responded to Pro's arguments?

It seems like you went off track and did not attack the main points. I think you could have beaten Pro if you analyzed the arguments better. Pro, I gave you the win because your arguments where believable, and I could follow them logically.
Posted by JC21bat 8 years ago
JC21bat
Con should look up the phrase " Mutually Exclusive."
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
And yes, all the members of the CWO should set itself on fire while cursing their very existences, but I have to agree with wjmelements, if only because pro's proposition was just that self-important and absurd.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
This subject seems so... arcane.

And the fact that you used the language of warfare and international politics when talking about video piracy makes it obvious how much you're overstating the importance of the subject.

>billions of dollars worldwide

OMG THATS LIKE 50 CENTS A PERSON WUTLL WE DO
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
That last comment I think was aimed at the CWO.
It was an attempt to keep the CWO out of this debate.
However, despite your bias, vote for the actual winner of this debate. Do not vote based on your personal feelings or beliefs.
That actual winner may or may not be me, since the majority of points on both sides are votes that appear are under the influence of bombing.
Posted by james_muic 8 years ago
james_muic
People! If you are a Republican and a Christian I do not want or need your vote. Please give your vote to wjmelements. If you are a Republican but not a Christian, I will be happy to accept your vote. If you are a Christian but not a Republican, I will be happy to accept your vote.

Thanks so much,,

Em-kay
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
*yawn* Falling asleep. Shall have my final verdict on this debate tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Most unprofessional on my part.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
CLEANERS VOTER REPORTING FOR DUTY:

CONDUCT: This was going to be a tie, however, in the third round, the instigator made an overly petty argument:

"Another tactic that the opposition has decided to use is "cutting and pasting" most of what the government has written, in an attempt to make their selves look more substantiated; but in fact, 70% of the opposition's second round came from "cutting and pasting" the governments words! This shows that the opposition is out of words, so they need to cut and paste from the government!"

As one who knows how to rely on the art of deception, this is not a very good approach, PRO. So what if he copied and pasted your words most of the time? It's quality not quantity, my friend. The amount of text is not what determines how good an argument is. To me, this just seems like an overly desperate attempt to portray the contender as incompetent or trickster. I'm willing to buy such pleads, but only when they are better thought out and don't come off as so obvious. Thus, I'm voting CON on this department.

Spelling and Grammar: Tie so far. Some pretty sloppy grammar for both parties in some cases. Overall though, not too shabby.

Convincing arguments: Pending, because you guys really went off track from the opening round. Give me some time to think.

Reliable Sources: I'm not counting CON's first link since it doesn't really do much to establish any of his points, however, he sources one of his arguments in the second round and PRO makes no argument to negate its reliability, so I'm giving this to CON.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Two voters gave my opponent every point (...vote bombing...)

I would recommend that future voters leave a RFD (reason for decision)
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Also, on another side note, we have discovered the identity of the government!
"For all of the above, the government absolutely crushes the opposition!!"
Though my opponent obviously was referring to himself, let it be known that I AM GOVERNENT!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Deltaforce 8 years ago
Deltaforce
james_muicwjmelementsTied
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 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 C21 8 years ago
C21
james_muicwjmelementsTied
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 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 JC21bat 8 years ago
JC21bat
james_muicwjmelementsTied
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 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 ArthurMurry 8 years ago
ArthurMurry
james_muicwjmelementsTied
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 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 Xera 8 years ago
Xera
james_muicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
james_muicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
james_muicwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
james_muicwjmelementsTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Lisa.Miller 8 years ago
Lisa.Miller
james_muicwjmelementsTied
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 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 Dark_knight 8 years ago
Dark_knight
james_muicwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70