The Instigator
Dyankovich
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

We cannot do slow troop withdrawals without hurting the soldiers already fighting in Iraq and Afghan

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 3752
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (11)

 

Dyankovich

Con

I am a loyal democrat... well I try to be. But I have a big problem with the Dems in this election. Neither of them ever served in uniform. As a member of the U.S. Army I feel John Mccain would have my best interests closer to his heart because he knows of the horrors in which we see. We can't slowly pull out of Iraq now, if we lessen the troop levels, then guys like me who stay are at risk... and we cant pull out all together, because then the whole region is at risk. Never mind what President Bush did, or what mistakes he made we all know he failed. We're stuck here now, and I think John Mccain has the best plan for my immediate future. Me and my military democrat friends as a whole feel let down by our party in this race, but as always we will suck it up and stay out here in the Devil's Sandbox.

I am open to all ideas on the better ways in which to handle this war. This site was created to have thought provoking debate on major issues, so lets have a good, friendly, and intelligent debate.
Yraelz

Pro

First off I'm going to notice that you're debating the wrong side of the resolution, so I'm actually just going to entirely ignore the resolution and simply discuss the points which you offered in your contention.

First off you state that a slow removal will hurt the troops, however I must submit a counter proposal that the troops are already being hurt. In fact, the longer we stay in Iraq the more damage will be done to our force. Not just in a monetary sense that is slowly decreasing our economic prowess but also in a mortality sense. Mortality in our soldiers and in the Iraqi people.

Furthermore I must submit to you that there is no solution to this conflict from out end of the spectrum. Not only is mandating democracy on a people entirely hypocritical in the sense that you are advocating they choose how to run their government through popular vote by mandating that they must do this, but also this is an Iraqi problem that needs to be solved by the Iraqi people.

The longer we stay there, the longer we lend, the longer we help them, the more that they will become dependent on us for support. We are functioning as a prosthetic limb right which the Iraqi people are using to rebuild their life around. The fact is, we have to leave at some point, and when that happens we rip the prosthetic limb out from under them. At which point they are going to have to find their own solution, it is better we do this sooner than later.

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
Dyankovich

Con

Thank you for taking this debate.

On a side note, I wanted this debate to be about ideas... I didn't want it to be about pro-con as much as the idea that two people debating could have innovation through speech. I don't think I conceded my opening by stating this or making myself the opposition. My argument is about ideas. The only idea I am against is slow troop withdrawals, which is the reason I chose CON. I also don't support completely pulling out either, but I'm open if the idea is both feasible and diplomatic towards the Middle East.
I hope though, both my opponent and others will read correctly. I stated I am against slow troop withdrawals (which would be CON)... and I think you should re-read my argument.

I really don't care if I lose this debate, to me this isn't about my record, this is about change.

Now lets get the actual first offs out of the way Yraelz... Let me take you back to school a little bit and teach you some basic math and grammar... Your first and second paragraphs both are starting with 'first off'- please tell me how you can do this? I mean if we are going to debate intelligently, wouldn't the second paragraph start with "second off?" I'm just curious...

If you would like a source it is here...
(1+1=2) www.calculatorforfree.com :-)

Your counter-proposal makes no sense. We are in wartime, and troops are going to be hurt regardless if we stay. If we pull out of Iraq slowly, we will have a smaller force in which to protect ourselves. This is basic common sense. I will concede anytime if I am wrong, but this is basic... less troops = being more vulnerable to attacks.

I will grant you that the longer we stay, more damage will be done to our forces. Of course this is true, it is called war, not vacation. The longer the troops stay in South Korea the more damage will be done to the coalition as well- by not being in other areas; But do we pull out of South Korea as well?
If we do there will be the same outcome, disaster.

Your argument that by us pulling out it will help the Iraqi people's mortality is absolutely ludicrous. Have you ever read anything about the Middle East?

In Somalia, they over-threw their government in 1993.
https://www.cia.gov......

Now it is absolutely chaotic... as President Clinton found out soon after the NTG(National Transitional Government) took (so-called) power. The same thing would happen in Iraq. Their government is so weak that if we left it wouldn't take more than 2 years before they became a clan-like state rampant with terrorism and dictators. How does this help the Iraqi people?
With us there ensuring stability to the region, and giving food to the hungry, we are placing a concrete foundation for their government to form and we are ensuring that al qaeda and the other 2,347 terrorist groups in the region don't take hold of the people and over-throw the government. By the way the family of suicide bombers get $10,000 American for their efforts from al qaeda. If we leave, Iraq falls into nothing. I don't know about you, but I don't need my already expensive gas going any higher by an even more volatile region where there is no defense for American civilians working the wells.

I agree with you that this is an Iraqi problem that DOES need to be solved by the IRAQI people, but not only the Iraqi people can do this. They can't do it alone, they need help.
According to the Truman Doctrine, Truman called upon the U.S. to "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,"

What would have happened to the Jews during the Holocaust if the United States wouldn't have entered the war? I spoke to my grandfather about this, he was there they day Americans found Auschwitz. He told me that we shouldn't ever let that happen to another person if we can help it... and that's what Harry Truman thought too. Regardless of why we're there, their welfare is in our hands now, and that's important.

But you are forgetting the guideline I set in the beginning of this debate.

"Never mind what President Bush did, or what mistakes he made we all know he failed. We're stuck here now." What do we do from here?

I do not agree that we should have charged Iraq and conquered... But we did. Too many people are screaming about that like idiots. It is too late, it is done... NOW WHAT? Lets look toward the future, not the past. This debate is about the best options, and your argument is about leaving people to fend for themselves. I don't like your argument very much.

This has America's bigger interest in it now as well. If we pull out of Iraq completely, leaving no troops behind, this will become terrorist haven #1... and every single life that has been sacrificed here will have been sacrificed for no reason at all. I still do think there is honor in helping someone who can't help themself, and I would die for that.

I agree that we could become a crutch to them, but what is not shown in the press is the number of troops that are trained in Iraq, or the constitution that they wrote, or the patriotism that these people have for their future country and for us. The media shows the fanatics. I have seen more people burn our flags and throw fruit at us soldiers than I could ever count to you... and this was on the Navy Pier in Chicago Illinois, or in Massachusetts, not in Iraq.

So in short your second argument is "the longer we stay the more of a crutch we will become"

You are wrong.

We totally decapitated these governments; they had to form almost from nothing or nothing at all.

Germany-We still occupy Germany. We have since the end of WW2, and for decades we have helped to stabilize them.

Korea- We are still in Korea stabilizing this region, we have been since the Korean conflicts.

Japan- We still occupy Japan, and have in the past supported them financially and in humanitarian ways.

Now here are a few of the darker times... the times in which we used your idea, and let countries solve their problems by their own people. Alone.

Vietnam- We pulled out, now they are communist who live in poverty.

Afghanistan- We helped them throw off the Soviets in the 80's and then abandoned them, and they became an al qaeda haven... then we had to take them out.

Haiti- We let them deal with things on their own, and they come here in huge numbers for asylum annually.

Cuba- We were defeated in the Bay of Pigs using President Eisenhower's plan of entry, and we let them be... they invaded the United States in record breaking numbers, and with the Mexicans, they are the reasons we have to "press 1 for English."

I'll close with this... If we would just take the time, take the effort, and take the extra money and do things right the first time, then we wouldn't have to worry about it the second, third, and fourth times. Every single time in history we have helped, and stayed, and sanctioned, the country prospered. They didn't think of us as a crutch, they didn't hinder us in any major way. Japan and Korea are two of our biggest economic and trade suppliers, which is because of us. Whereas the countries we have abandoned became future enemies.

Why wouldn't we stay and help these people? If you don't support the war, that's fine... neither do I. I support the people, I support American interest in the Middle East, and I support salvation.

So we are back at square one, what do we do? How do we help this country prosper, and find a way to withdrawal honorably and without harm? I still haven't heard any ideas from you... I am waiting.
Yraelz

Pro

My opponent seems to be under the vague impression that the word "first" can only occur once. This is rather untrue and is an example of the the common sense fallacy.

For instance if I were to outline a book each chapter would have many subpoints and each subpoint might have a couple sub-subpoints. Thereby there would be a FIRST subpoint for chapter 1, but at the same time there would also be a FIRST subpoint for chaper 2, and probably a FIRST sub-subpoint for chapter 2 subpoint B.

Thus having the term first used in multitudes is fine as long as each first is not intended to describe the same object.

Looking specifically to our current debate. I begin by rejecting the resolution so we may have an honest debate and then go on to state my reasoning behind my case.

Thus I have a FIRST reason to reject the resolution combined with a FIRST argument on my case.

Now let to examine to my opponent actual case in this debate. As I stated he is arguing the wrong side of the resolution but we will be ignoring that, because it doesn't matter in this round.

My opponent spends his last round arguing against completely pulling out of Iraq but inadvertently, and comically, actually advocates against his own case.

He offers 6 scenarios, the first four were:

1. Vietnam
2. Afghanistan
3. Haiti
4. Cuba

These scenarios are all very compelling reasons not to flat out pull out of Iraq. My opponent has without a doubt convinced me of this.

The first three were:

1. Germany
2. Korea
3. Japan

And these of course are compelling reasons to stay in Iraq. However it seems to me that we invaded Germany, Korea, and Japan with rather sizable forces. It also seems to me that we do not currently have as many troops in these three countries as we did at the end of WWII and the Korean war respectively. Thus it stands to reason that at some point we must have withdrawn some of the troops that were originally stationed in those countries. However we have not fully withdrawn. Thus all three of the above countries have experienced slow troop withdrawals, and probably will continue to do so until they are completely stabilized without a doubt.

Thus I can only advocate the counter advocacy of slowly stabilizing Iraq while slowly withdrawing troops as it becomes more stabilized. The three examples above have convinced me.
Debate Round No. 2
Dyankovich

Con

Yraelz,
Thanks again for the debate.
I am under the impression that first means first. Pardon the sarcasm, but do you remember that one time when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon? Well, we say Neil Armstrong was the "first'. Then Buzz Aldrin landed 'second'. If you are going to say first off while arguing against the first thing I said... Then your 'common sense fallacy' should explain to you that when attacking the second thing it would be 'second off'.

On a side note, you are not outlining chapters, you are debating. Grammer matters, which is why there is spell check. By making small errors it takes away from your credibility and the natural flow of your argument.
Explaining this to you is ridiculous...You do not seem to understand.
I can tell you are over-reaching your personal vocabulary by the way you use the english language;
"Common sense fallacy"
"Thus having the term first used in multitudes is fine as long as each first is not intended to describe the same object."
"Looking specifically to our current debate. I begin by rejecting the resolution so we may have an honest debate and then go on to state my reasoning behind my case."
I understand what you are trying to say, and I like your counter arguments... but you are the guy who tries to advocate his intelligence by using words outside his vocabulary. Believe me people will see you're intelligent without you overdoing it.
Now with all that said I would like to begin my next argument.

My opponent in this entire debate has put forth one ALMOST legible argument, that is all. The rest of the time he has incoherently rambled on against my ideas without putting forth any on his own...
Except this one, "Thus I can only advocate the counter advocacy of slowly stabilizing Iraq while slowly withdrawing troops as it becomes more stabilized. The three examples above have convinced me."
Advocate the counter advocacy? Stabilizing Iraq while slowly withdrawing troops as it becomes more stabilized? Please don't do this to the english language. This is too much for me, I am actually chuckling at my desk. Please see my above statement on your arguments.

Besides another 'innovative and original' argument from you, I will once again point you to the initial statement for this debate. You entered this debate on my first statements merit, so I would hope that by accepting my challenge you accept the terms of this debate. You keep going back and giving the "what if's". What does it matter now if Korea initially had 213,000 soldiers in the invasion? We are in the "now".
"We can't slowly pull out of Iraq now, if we lessen the troop levels, then guys like me who stay are at risk... and we cant pull out all together, because then the whole region is at risk. Never mind what President Bush did, or what mistakes he made, we all know he failed."
Yes we invaded Germany with sizable forces, and we invaded Japan, and Korea with large forces as well, but we cannot change the fact that we messed up in the beginning of this conflict. It does however re-enforce my resolution that we can't pull out just yet without doing lasting damage. We have to secure this region before we can remove the troops. We will never completely be out of the area though.

With your closing statement you seem agree with me. You have said exactly what I have been saying. I don't think I can say much more in this portion now though. Although what little you said is mostly gibberish and nothing factual at all, the rest it seems you agree with me on.

We cannot do slow troop withdrawals without hurting the fighting men and women who are already there. We have to secure this area, AND DO IT RIGHT...
Yraelz

Pro

Doo dee doo. I think I'm going to be covering each statement my opponent has offered. Enjoy. =)

We start of course with the "first" argument. I stated rather clearly in my last round that multiple firsts can be used providing each first describes a different object. Perhaps it would be best if I elaborated. By different objects I would be describing different categories. For instance, I may receive for my birthday a goldfish and then a cat. The goldfish would be my first pet, and my first fish. The cat would be my second pet but would be my first cat. Thus whilst in the same category (pets) I cannot have multiple firsts. However if we are talking about different categories or objects I can have as many firsts as categories allow. The same is true of our current debate. My first argument on this debate was a quick resolutional analysis. The second argument was a refutation of my opponents case. However if we look at this from another perspective my FIRST argument under resolutional analysis was my first paragraph in round 1. My FIRST argument directly refuting my opponents case was the second paragraph. Thus it is more than possible, for me to have two firsts in the same debate, they just have to be in two different categories, which they are.

==============================
Next we have the matter of the common sense fallacy. This fallacy actually doesn't exist at all, I interjected it for 2 reasons.

1. So that a select few debaters would be amused over a made up fallacy.
2. So that I could point out my opponents logical flaw without actually directly attacking him. It should still be noted that while I am dropping the title, "common sense fallacy", my opponents line of reasoning remains fallacious.

My opponent of course decides to turn this on me and begins a lengthy ad hominem attack against me. Thus I can only advocate 2 scenarios.

A. We drop the ad hominem attacks and consider the points moot. I will be supporting this with 1. The fact that my opponent did spell the word grammar wrong whilst pointing out that I need to use proper grammar and 2. The fact that my opponent forgot to capitalize the word English while telling me not to ruin the English language.

B. The ad hominem attacks should be turned against my opponent. This will be based on the idea that I intentionally did a multitude of incorrect math:

"He offers 6 scenarios, the first four were:"
"The first three were:"
3 + 4 =! 6

Math that I must point out a 2nd grader could understand. Which, of course, my opponent did not notice. Thereby my opponents ad hominem attacks on grammar should be turned against him on the merit of his lack of simple mathematics.

C. My opponent should be voted against for offering each of his ad hominem attacks. Let us review them:

1. "I can tell you are over-reaching your personal vocabulary by the way you use the english language; "
2. "you are the guy who tries to advocate his intelligence by using words outside his vocabulary."
3. "My opponent in this entire debate has put forth one ALMOST legible argument"
4. "he has incoherently rambled on against my ideas without putting forth any on his own... "
5. "Please don't do this to the english language."

Voting against my opponent helps to set a precedent in two ways. For starters it discourages my opponent from using ad hominem attacks against other debate users if he knows that he will be voted against for it. Secondly it discourages other debaters who see this debate from using ad hominem attacks due to the fact that they will quickly realize how little such attacks actually further their debate.

This community was made, as my opponent states, for intelligent debate. Intelligent debate coincidentally does not include ad hominem attacks to further ones point, if this is what my opponent enjoys doing I must kindly ask that he join an angry blog instead.

=====================
Finally we have my opponent's case. In his 2nd round he offered 7 empirical examples from past countries. In four of these examples he showed how flat out pulling out of a country that we invaded would be detrimental. In the other three examples he showed how slow troop withdrawals from the countries we invaded was very successful.

I agree with my opponent and must bring an argument back from my last round. I stated,

"Thus I can only advocate the counter advocacy of slowly stabilizing Iraq while slowly withdrawing troops as it becomes more stabilized."

My opponent of course did not enjoy this statement as he found it rather redundant. However there was a rather definite reason for it's redundancy. Specifically if we examine the second part of this statement it states that we will be slowly withdrawing troops as Iraq becomes more stabilized. In other words, as stabilization increases troop withdrawal proportionally increases. As we are slowly stabilizing Iraq at this point in time it is possible for us to slowly begin withdrawing troops, even if this means only a few troops per day.

Which brings me to the end of my opponents point in which he states that slow troops withdrawals will only hurt the troops that will remain. Under my plan this is untrue. I advocate that we withdraw troops as stability increases. The more stable the country the less troops are needed. A similar situation would be a crime ridden town. The lower the crime that exists in the town the lower the need for a police force exists.
Debate Round No. 3
Dyankovich

Con

Dyankovich forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

Alright, well I am just going to be asking for an extension of all of my point. Thanks for the debate, thanks for judging.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Hmmmm =) =) =) Thank you for the compliment.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
I agree entirely with Rob1Billion.

Dyankovich, I think you're a really smart guy, but that logic about the President and serving really has no merit. Case in point: GWB. Besides, even if a President had served, it would have been a different war, different time, different outside factors, etc etc etc. Remember that politics, objectives and people change. I don't think that serving in the military should really be a factor in terms of choosing the next President. Remember the military is only one aspect of politics/government. While one person may have experience in one field, someone else might have more knowledge in another. The military is not the be-all end-all, and I really hope you reconsider changing your mind (on the basis of military involvement).

That said, I'm kind of disappointed with the outcome of this debate. I think both debaters are great, but to scrutinize over simple mathematics and grammar (I have yet to see one debater on this site with perfect grammar - even Dyankovich made a few errors) was really unnecessary. I was interested in the arguments, and I think both sides made some really good points. I wish R4 had been adequately debated. I agree with Logical though - this was a clear 5 rounder (and I've never had that opinion before haha).

Kudos to Yraelz for not nailing Con on his accidental position against the resolution though. Also, I think it says a lot about someone when they acknowledge a changed perspective via debate as Yraelz did with Con's 3 examples. He [Yraelz] truly is a gentleman. I voted Pro, but hopefully Dyankovich can post this debate some other time - maybe even against Yraelz - cuz I'd definitely be interested in reading it.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
This debate still had a ways to go. Should've been a five rounder. Thus, I take R4 as a concession and vote PRO.
Posted by Dyankovich 8 years ago
Dyankovich
Rob1billion,

Please remember that the military may stand out as a force, but they are people just like yourself. The reason that people give a President who served more respect is because he sacrificed his life for the country, and people feel he wouldn't send soldiers into a bad situation without reason because he knows what it is like to be there himself.

Thank you for the comment. Thank you all, I will be off this site for a while... But I will be back in time.

Thanks,
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
I'm getting sick of people only giving respect to anyone who served in the military. Serving in the military does not make or break your ability to lead or serve in office. Civilians must retain most of the power over this country, because if we only listen to the military then we will become a MILITARY STATE. People always automatically defer to what the troops have to say about the war and that is utterly wrong; there is a fundamental need for the military's opinions to be checked and dominated by the civilian population. I don't give a rat's behind if someone who served in Iraq supports the war or not; their opinions don't carry any more weight than mine. They have seen first hand what is going on, granted, but they have also been severely conditioned by thier superiors to follow the leader blindly and they can't afford to have an opinion of their own. If one of the candidates became a general in the armed forces that could help their candidacy but it does not automatically disqualify them if they haven't entered the military. The fact that our president has the ability to postpone the war, which in turn requires a military president in the future, which in turn gives him the authority to postpone the war, which in turn requires another military president.... this is complete and utter BULLSH*& and the civilian part of our government really should start standing up to this garbage and put the military back in its place - as a subordinate and obedient sector WITHOUT AN OPINION.
Posted by Dyankovich 8 years ago
Dyankovich
I apologize I have been called into combat and not allowed any break time until now. Yraelz, thank you for the debate, I wish it had been more fulfilling. You are a gentleman.
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
Its fine. I have just seen too many people trying to pose as military on the net before. I am Army myself, currently up at Fort Drum.
Posted by Dyankovich 8 years ago
Dyankovich
I am a part of the Blue to Green operation where Navy sailors transition from the Navy to the Army to help the undermanned operations of the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts. Some sailors have the option of switching branches of the military and getting combat promoted, and some have the option to transition into other rates that are in quick need of military trained individuals. This occurs when there is no time to train recruits. I was lucky enough to have access to this program.
I am now apart of the Army after attending the warrior transition course (WTC) in white sands NM.
Sorry, I must have forgotten to change my profile and will do that immediately.

Thanks,
DYankovich
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
Dyankovich,

Personal question, are you in the Navy or the Army? On your profile you say Navy and in this debate you say Army. Makes me doubt your credibility.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 8 years ago
Geekis_Khan
Yeah. Be careful about what side you assign yourself when setting up the debate. I hadn't noticed that.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
DyankovichYraelzTied
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
DyankovichYraelzTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
DyankovichYraelzTied
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 jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
DyankovichYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sillycow 8 years ago
sillycow
DyankovichYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
DyankovichYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
DyankovichYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Gespenst 8 years ago
Gespenst
DyankovichYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
DyankovichYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by FiredUpRepublican 8 years ago
FiredUpRepublican
DyankovichYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30