The Instigator
philosphical
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
paramore102
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Upon admitting guilt, the death penalty is reasonable.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,356 times Debate No: 10942
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

philosphical

Pro

I'm going to be standing on the affirmative side of this resolution. This means I support the death penalty for ONLY those who have admitted guilt. Unless their is like video taped evidence of the crime and the person wont admit, I don't think its right to kill prisoners who may not even be the right person who was convicted.
So with that being said, Ill start my argument.

A1: INFRINGEMENT

If someone can find it in them to take the life of an innocent person (note this is not including self defence charges obviously) then they hardly deserve life themselves.
America's own pledge of aliegance was founded of of justice. "...and justice for all...".

A2: ECONOMIC REASONS

Most state penitaries are overcrowded.
Here's a report from back in 2001.
"The Bureau of Justice Statistics, which releases findings about prison populations twice a year, reports a 7.2 percent growth in federal prisons in the first half of 2001, compared to a 1.6 percent population growth in state prisons. "

http://www.prisonpolicy.org...

And the problems have only increased since then.
in 2008, 1 in every 100 adults end up behind bars!

"Based on current projections, by 2011 the U.S. prison population will increase by 13% – which is triple the growth of the entire population as a whole – to more than 1.7 million . Supporting that increase in incarcerated people will cost American taxpayers and local/state budgets an estimated $27.5 billion. At that time, another 4 million people will also be on probation or parole. "

http://www.jailovercrowding.com...

Now that I have given evidence on how the prisons are overcrowded, I will show you where the problem comes.

140,610 prisoners a year, get convicted and given a life sentence.
http://www.prisonactivist.org...

Why should these people deserve to take up the space that would be more useful to prisoners on parole? They provide absolutely nothing beneficial for America, and just take up space and eat food. The problem with that, is that they don't even deserve. Logically, the best decision would be death for these people. They have no future, and are never going to be let out. It serves us no good to keep them here.

A3: OVERCROWDED PRISONS=INCREASED VIOLENCE

Overcrowded prisons spawn violence. Prisoners generally come from violent backgrounds and when put in an environment where there are others like themselves, there will be nothing good.

"If you cram prisoners into a small space and give them nothing productive to do, you will breed violence."
Mike Earley.

"Case in point: the recent bloody riot at California's prison at Chino. It lasted 20 hours. Some 250 inmates were injured. Men attacked each other with shards of glass and broken water pipes, inflicting stab and head wounds so severe that scores of victims had to be rushed to local hospitals."
http://www.breakpoint.org...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Why should there be unnecessary violence, when over 1/10 of the prisoners involved in the violence don't deserve to be there in the first place, due to taking away the lives of another?

I feel I have made my points clear, and I will patiently await for my opponent to accept my challenge.
Good luck to you :)

-philosophical

SOURCES
[ http://www.prisonpolicy.org... ]

[ http://www.jailovercrowding.com... ]

[ http://www.prisonactivist.org... ]

[ http://www.breakpoint.org... ]

[http://www.nytimes.com... ]
paramore102

Con

I would like to thank Philosophical for this the challenging me on this debate topic, and look forward to any farther debates that we have in the future. I wish my opponent the best of luck.

Some people say that penalty is legalized murder because it is like "an eye for an eye". The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalized and the other is not! People are more brutalized by what they see on T.V. daily. People are not brutalized by punishments they are brutalized by our failure to serious punish, the brutal acts.

In my opponents recent post he claims that, "If someone can find it in them to take the life of an innocent person then they hardly deserve life themselves." Although my opponent claims to " note this is not including self defence charges" however what my opponent doesn't take in to consideration is that millions are waiting for the day that they hear it's their turn to walk their death. In my mind does my opponent not take in to consideration they family of the prisoner?

"Why should these people deserve to take up the space that would be more useful to prisoners on parole? They provide absolutely nothing beneficial for America, and just take up space and eat food. The problem with that, is that they don't even deserve. Logically, the best decision would be death for these people. They have no future, and are never going to be let out. It serves us no good to keep them here." - Philosophical
I do not believe that they are just taking space. If we were to create task with in the prison its self this would be a great way for them to make money if they have a family to support. I believe that a person can be changed if shown how. The problem with that is that no one is willing to show them how to change for the good of their family as well as for America. If America's own pledge of allegiance was founded of justice. "...and justice for all..." then why cant they be given a chance to change the damage that they have created the pain that they have inside is nothing more then anger that builds with in them.
Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. This was as of June of 2008.

My opponent also claims that state penitentiaries are overcrowded. Why not take the money that is being used on the death penalty to create new penitentiaries?

They only reason that the death penalty is a just retribution because the criminals should suffer the same way as their victims did. Other then that the death penalty is a violation of the basic human rights. The death penalty is irrevocable and should be avoided to avoid judicial murder. Most studies shows that death penalty does not reduce crime.

Who has the authority to judge whether a person should live or die?

I want to thank Philosophical for this debate and wish him the best of luck. I look forward to his response.

Sources :
> http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...
> http://karisable.com...
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Debate Round No. 1
philosphical

Pro

I will first go over my opponents case which will also address mine id doing so. Good luck paramore102 :)

First I will address my opponents copied "quote".

MY OPPONENT: "Some people say that penalty is legalized murder because it is like "an eye for an eye". The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalized and the other is not"

I would like to request an accurate description from my opponents view point of how she feels crime and punishment are the same with a different name. The author of this quote seems to mix an eye for an eye with justice. Though at first glance the two principles would seem the same, in reality, they are quite different. An eye for an eye, is more indirect ruthless revenge to try an intentionally harm that person as much as possible. An example of this would be someone who has had a friend injured in a gang fight. He/she might go after that gang member who has inflicted injury on his friend, by not only attacking the person, but by also attacking that persons loved ones in order to make the victim feel what he/she has felt. Justice, on the other hand, is more than mildly different.

Justice is to seek out that perfect fairness could is sought out. Its to clarify and uphold what is right and discipline what is wrong. Justice, isn't about seeking emotional revenge, (for lack of a better word on summoning up an eye for an eye), but it goes more on punishing the wrong for their actions. Without punishment, there would result a non-defended public, and lead to a decrease in public safety. Obviously not good on any account.

MY OPPONENT: "People are more brutalized by what they see on T.V. daily. People are not brutalized by punishments they are brutalized by our failure to serious punish, the brutal acts."

Ignoring the fact that the grammar in this statement was innacurate, I am led to believe that the author of this statement wants us to think that the media is what has caused all the criminals actions.
I find this to be a lack of responsibility.

"answerable or accountable, as for something within one's power, control, or management (often fol. by to or for): He is responsible to the president for his decisions"

http://dictionary.reference.com...

By blaming ones problems on the media, we create what I call 'excuses'. Sometimes it is easier to find excuses, then to accept responsibility. The leading point, is that everyone has the ability to make a choice. Whether not that choice is a good one or a bad one, there is always going to be a consequence. By blaming ones choices on the media, the said person does not claim responsibility.
Some of Americas greatest people, have grown up in crappy environments. They chose to go against the way they were brought up and make their own stands. Their own decisions. So saying that the media has caused criminals to do there actions, is nothing more than an excuse and a scapegoat.

MY OPPONENT: "...however what my opponent doesn't take in to consideration is that millions are waiting for the day that they hear it's their turn to walk their death. In my mind does my opponent not take in to consideration the family of the prisoner?"

Though I don't really quite see how this ties into what your were quoting me off of, I will address the part about the family.
There's always going to be heartbreak when a family member goes to prison. But life is full of heart break, and sometimes people need to realize that life just sucks. I don't see how sentencing someone to their death is any worse on the family, then having that family member rot in jail there whole life.
Thus, I believe this argument is null.

MY OPPONENT: "I do not believe that they are just taking space. If we were to create task with in the prison its self this would be a great way for them to make money if they have a family to support."

LOL, you can't support a family in when your in prison. HAHAHA your so cute.
But just for fun, what type of work could a life sentenced prisoner actually do inside the prison?
They are limited in the actual things they are privileged to do. They are not even privileged to make drivers licences like those with short terms can, because they can be used to make weapons. Most of them spend there time in solitary confinement there whole life.

MY OPPONENT: "I believe that a person can be changed if shown how. The problem with that is that no one is willing to show them how to change for the good of their family as well as for America. If America's own pledge of allegiance was founded of justice. "...and justice for all..." then why cant they be given a chance to change the damage that they have created the pain that they have inside is nothing more then anger that builds with in them."

Im sorry, but murder and rape, aren't things you can just go to the government about and say "I am sorry. I've changed! Will you please forgive me?".
Infringe once, your screwed, and that's the way it's always been played in america for life sentences.

MY OPPONENT: "Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. This was as of June of 2008"

Although its obvious this was copied and pasted as well, I will address how this information is incorrect. The death penalty is one of the most cost efficient ways, and economically helpful ways to help reduce prison population and deal justice.
Its not hard to put a bullet in someone's brain. Its the court cases that complicate things.
The death penalty costs less money than life in prison. Yes, a Death Penalty sentence has a number of automatic appeals which are quite expensive. However, the anti-Death Penalty folks assume a life in prison sentence has no appeals at all, and that is just not the case. Inmates routinely file appeals for a Life In Prison sentence, they are just not automatic as in a Death Penalty sentence.

MY OPPONENT: "My opponent also claims that state penitentiaries are overcrowded. Why not take the money that is being used on the death penalty to create new penitentiaries?"

Because its the court cases that complicate the cash. The court money does not in anyway belong to the penitentuary.
Also it is counter productive in terms of justice, and again, the un-argued economics.

MY OPPONENT: "Who has the authority to judge whether a person should live or die?"

Obviously, we do :)

And maybe the prisoners who committed the murder in the first place should've asked themselves that question before they murdered/raped.

Thanks for the quick response paramore 102. Good luck, again.

Sources:
[ www.amnestyusa.org ]
[ www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108 ]
[ www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=24 ]
[ abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=7075017 ]
[ http://dictionary.reference.com... ]
paramore102

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his response. I'm sorry for the late response, and wish my opponent the best of luck.

Crime and punishment to me like the author are two different things. In my opinion crime is in action something that is committed by breaking a law and that is not expected by the society. Punishment in my opinion is when you know your action was wrong and you know that there will be a consequence in the end. However they are both in the same meaning. Like the author said "an eye for an eye" with out the crime there would be no punishment. So with one eye you wouldn't be able to tell weather the prisoner should receive the punishment for the crime. What happens when the person knows that they are guilty? Shall they still receive the punishment?

Justice…what to think when this is heard? We have been taught good from bad, but they only want to teach us what is wrong in areas that suits the government in there own good. Of course that they wouldn't like justice for the victim, but what is the justice for them self? We ask our self's questions everyday? Do you ever wonder what its like to tell someone that they are on death row? Is it hard for them to focus do they wish they could help? No answers are ever answered. Is what they call Justice?

In October of 2009 I attended Purdue university where the Department of Communication where Amy Patterson Neubert shared her perspectives in TV and how it opens the minds of millions around the world to create criminal actions.

"Many people die as a result of being murdered in these types of shows, and we found the heavy TV-crime viewers estimated two and a half times more real-world deaths due to murder than non-viewers," Sarapin a doctoral student in communications says. "People's perceptions also were distorted in regards to a number of other serious crimes. Heavy TV-crime viewers consistently overestimated the frequency of crime in the real world."

MY OPPONENT "believes that blaming ones problems on the media is what he calls an "excuse". Sometimes it is easier to find excuses, then to accept responsibility. The leading point, is that everyone has the ability to make a choice. Whether not that choice is a good one or a bad one, there is always going to be a consequence. By blaming ones choices on the media, the said person does not claim responsibility."

Those that have committed a crime is due to the home environment that they lived in as a child and young adult. They were never given the support or encouragement and their only way out was through violence and maybe hurting others. Do you honestly think that these men/women wake up one day and plan this? The environment that they grow up in has a lot to do with where they are now. Many don't take that in to consideration.

HEARTBERAK in a child's eye is what you consider to be null? This doesn't have to be null they government has the choice in weather they shall live or not.

MY OPPONENT " LOL, you can't support a family in when your in prison. HAHAHA your so cute.
But just for fun, what type of work could a life sentenced prisoner actually do inside the prison?
They are limited in the actual things they are privileged to do. They are not even privileged to make drivers licences like those with short terms can, because they can be used to make weapons. Most of them spend there time in solitary confinement there whole life."

Now no offense to my opponent, but my cuteness in my speech is not part of this debate. Now getting back at the real topic jobs that can be involve in the penitentiaries can consist of cooks, maintenance crew. Why shall the government danger other civilians if what they want is to protect themselves and those around them form what they consider to be the bad people of society?

I still think that they can be changed if they were shown how. If they had just been taught the good from bad. There can be a second chance for them in life as well as their family.

Murder or rape is a crime but I don't thing that they shall be given death. One they government lets them back out some even living near schools or daycare's. Isn't the job of the government to inform the public of these here dangerous men/women their job? Why haven't actions been taken to better prevent this?

Take a look at my area? >>>>>> http://www.familywatchdog.us...

I wish my opponent the best of luck! (let's try to stay on topic next time philosphical :])

SORCES:
> www.purdue.edu
>www.familywatchdog.us
Debate Round No. 2
philosphical

Pro

MY OPPONENT: "In my opinion crime is in action something that is committed by breaking a law and that is not expected by the society. Punishment in my opinion is when you know your action was wrong and you know that there will be a consequence in the end. However they are both in the same meaning. Like the author said "an eye for an eye" with out the crime there would be no punishment. So with one eye you wouldn't be able to tell weather the prisoner should receive the punishment for the crime."

I see a vast difference between the two. Remember crime isn't just small things like stealing purses. Let's talk murder and rape. If some one commits murder or rape, they have taken someone's whole life away. If we didn't have punishment, that would be like saying, "It's okay that you murdered that person. Oh, don't worry, nothing is going to happen to you because we don't want to kill you and be just like you."

That's where there should be a very visible line drawn between revenge and justice. Justice is a people as a whole reprimanding someone for an injustice they have committed upon an innocent human being. Its not just revenge, as my opponent believes. If it was revenge, we would be going after the prisoners family members as well to make them suffer. Punishment is simply teaching a person who has done something bad what is right. When your a child, if you are naughty, your most likely going to be spanked so you can learn from your mistake. But with murder, it's not so simple as to just let the murderer go. They have taken someone's life, they have played god and decided who should and shouldn't live when that is not there duty.
That's where punishment in the extreme is nessicary. Letting someone go who has murdered, can probably chance another murder. These are actual human beings who are being murdered. It IS a big deal, and these murderers are a detriment to society. Death helps us with that one.

MY OPPONENT: " What happens when the person knows that they are guilty? Shall they still receive the punishment?"

Of course. Why not? Just because you have acknowledged that you've done something wrong doesn't mean you have learned from it. And even if you have, there's still punishment for justice.

MY OPPONENT: "Justice…what to think when this is heard?..."

You talk about justice in this second paragraph, but you don't actually address my points on how it is bad. You ask if one would know what it is like to tell some they are on death row. I say, who cares what it feels like. They deserve it and cannot get off easy with there crime. And again it's not revenge, if it were, we would be trying to make the criminal suffer. Death penalty is quick and painless. So I don't understand how justice in this case is immoral.

MY OPPONENT: In October of 2009 I attended Purdue university where the Department of Communication where Amy Patterson Neubert shared her perspectives in TV and how it opens the minds of millions around the world to create criminal actions.

"Many people die as a result of being murdered in these types of shows, and we found the heavy TV-crime viewers estimated two and a half times more real-world deaths due to murder than non-viewers," Sarapin a doctoral student in communications says. "People's perceptions also were distorted in regards to a number of other serious crimes. Heavy TV-crime viewers consistently overestimated the frequency of crime in the real world."

I lolled. Your silly. I know this is copy and pasted for two reasons.
1. Your in high school, So I know you didn't attend this university.
2. This supports MY CASE rather than yours. I hope you know how this tells us that murder is wrong and has affected alot of people. Exactly what I am saying. Thanks kiddo!

MY OPPONENT: "Those that have committed a crime is due to the home environment that they lived in as a child and young adult. They were never given the support or encouragement and their only way out was through violence and maybe hurting others. Do you honestly think that these men/women wake up one day and plan this? The environment that they grow up in has a lot to do with where they are now. Many don't take that in to consideration."

So your saying that it's okay for someone who has been abused who grown up in violent childhoods, to go out and kill and rape, and steal, without consequence? Again I'd like to remind you that there are hundreds of famous people who have has bad lives growing, up and they have turned out to be our nations leaders and inspirers.

Read these links and tell me that having a bad life is an excuse for crime.

http://www.disabled-world.com...
http://www.dyslexiaonline.com...
http://profiles.incredible-people.com...
http://celebrity-gossip.suite101.com...
http://www.moneybluebook.com...
crohn-colitis.hu/eng/famous-people-with-ibd.php

MY OPPONENT: "HEARTBERAK in a child's eye is what you consider to be null? This doesn't have to be null they government has the choice in weather they shall live or not"

mmm... What about the heartbreak of the people who the criminals hurt? Family members? Friends? None of that matters though as long as the person who committed the crime has felt it in childhood, though, right?

MY OPPONENT: "Now no offense to my opponent, but my cuteness in my speech is not part of this debate."

I say that because you say silly things that don't support your case. No offense babe.

My OPPONENT: "Now getting back at the real topic jobs that can be involve in the penitentiaries can consist of cooks, maintenance crew. Why shall the government danger other civilians if what they want is to protect themselves and those around them form what they consider to be the bad people of society?"

Er, duh, they shouldn't silly one. That's why they don't, and that's why the death penality is okay. Thanks again kiddo :)

My OPPONENT: "I still think that they can be changed if they were shown how. If they had just been taught the good from bad. There can be a second chance for them in life as well as their family."

Whether they have changed or not is irrelevant. The person whose lives the murderers have taken, will never be able to change their own life again, because of one persons selflessness and the fact that that person believes he can do whatever he wants.

MY OPPONENT: "Isn't the job of the government to inform the public of these here dangerous men/women their job? Why haven't actions been taken to better prevent this?"

Again, so it is okay for there to be criminals and murders walking around freely in a more or less peaceful society, where they can get their hands on any type of weapons, or things that can be used as weapons, and just let them roam free? Explain this one to me. :)

CONCLUSION: I feel I have proved my point well. You should vote for me because, my opponent has failed to prove that justice is wrong, has copied and pasted stuff, and admitted that she did (without quoting sources), and you should vote for me because she copied and pasted stuff that actually supported my case. Also I have proved that responsibility is essential, and excuses for ones lifestyle in growing up are not valid.
Vote pro!

MY OPPONENT: "(let's try to stay on topic next time philosphical :])"

I think has made me laugh hardest of all!

How about lets:
1. Use better and proper grammar
2. Not copy and paste stuff without sourcing and quoting it
3. Not post stuff that goes against your own case

next time. Okay paramore? :)

I wish my opponent best of luck next round. Love ya kiddo!

SOURCES
(above)

thankyou,
Philosophical.
paramore102

Con

I would like to thank my opponent and this was a great debate and look forward to many more with my opponent. I am sorry for my bad quoting and source use. :[

"excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " This is according to the eighth amendment

"nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted."

The sad thing is that we are not a shame of what is done. We even have slogans to in courage people that this the right thing to do.

"We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong."

First of all, the slogan misses an important point. The death penalty does not punish people for killing, but for murder. Killing is justified when it is done in self-defense. Killing means to cause death. Murder, on the other hand, is defined as, "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another". "Kill," "murder," and "execute" are not interchangeable terms.

What differences dose this give our government to do the same.

As to my opponent and his list of links that having a bad life is and excuse for a crime. I don't see how being deaf, losing your house or even having a family member die has to do with anything to do with the death penalty. All those famous people with hearing disabilities is just one more thing to make them stand out yes they have help by showing that even with a conditions that they have it is possible. So why not give those on death row one more chance? Why cant they show the youth that it is possible. Programs are needed in the facilities. I think that it is important to listen to what the prisoners have to say. If they think that death row is what is best that it should be given but if they have reasons to why they thing that they should live then they should the right to speak. As we have all been given the freedom of speech in this country.

lol... philosphical im gland you got your laugh out of this debate, your funny! Thanks for the debate sorry I didn't do as good as I could have. Maybe next time ill get you!
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
thankyou for the feedback roy. I'll try better on spelling next time :)
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Tracking the arguments in the debate, I think Pro did a better job of responding. Con made the standard argument about cost, which ignored Pro's stipulation of confession, which would obviate many costly appeals. Pro should have pressed that point, but let it slide.

There were many spelling and grammar errors on both sides, but Pro's repeated use of "your" rather than "you're" was a bit annoying.

A nice debate. Both sides had thought a lot about the issue.
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
lol paramore thanks for the debate :)

Oh, btw, jsut to clear up the list of famous people growing with difficult lives was to prove that growing up with difficult lives isn't a proper excuse for murder and crime.

Good debate! Look forward to more in the future
Posted by wjmelements 4 years ago
wjmelements
Atheistman, I pointed that out a week ago.
Posted by atheistman 4 years ago
atheistman
If this was the case, then no one would admit to being guilty.
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
All i'm saying is that the court has flaws. I don't care what sollution they find, as long as there is tangible proof that the prisoner is guilty.
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
All i'm saying is that the court has flaws. I don't care what sollution they find, as long as there is tangible proof that the prisoner is guilty.
Posted by mongeese 4 years ago
mongeese
"Wjm, maybe they can just not introduce the idea to the public. Maybe they already have done this?"

That would be rather cruel, killing off those willing to admit guilt while imprisoning those who are not. Admitting guilt should be rewarded somewhat.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
'Yes, well I think they could find a more accurate way of proving guilt then. The court systems has alot of flaws, and alot of the time, people get wrongly convicted for murder and such'

Okay, so Pro has just conceded the debate...
Posted by philosphical 4 years ago
philosphical
Wjm, maybe they can just not introduce the idea to the public. Maybe they already have done this?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by KendallAntigone 4 years ago
KendallAntigone
philosphicalparamore102Tied
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 Koopin 4 years ago
Koopin
philosphicalparamore102Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Grape 4 years ago
Grape
philosphicalparamore102Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by The_Anarchist_Opposition 4 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
philosphicalparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
philosphicalparamore102Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by paramore102 4 years ago
paramore102
philosphicalparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40