The Instigator
ethopia619
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Charr
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

We should ban boxing

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
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: 12/12/2010 Category: Sports
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 14,572 times Debate No: 14020
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

ethopia619

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Good luck!

Round 1: Please Accept
Round 2- Round 3: Arguments
Round 4:Arguments and Wrap up

Definitions

Boxing- the act, technique, or profession of fighting with the fists, with or without boxing gloves.
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Charr

Con

Very well, I accept and wish to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate.

I look forward to a constructive and entertaining debate.
Debate Round No. 1
ethopia619

Pro

I'd like to thank Charr. Good luck!

1. Boxing injuries

Boxing is intended to harm others. The goal of boxing is to "knock out" your opponent. This causes unconsciousness, and then results in brain damage. For example, Levander Johnson died, all because of brain injuries. The Quarry brothers passed away because of beatings. Ouch! About 1,000 boxers died, and many others were seriously injured.
http://larrybrownsports.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Boxing harms

Some of the people here at debate.org had black eyes before, right? As stated in my definition in Round 1, boxing is the act of fighting with fists. Now, there are many kinds of boxing, so I will pick out a Chinese boxing called: Wing Chun. Wing Chun involves many ways of taking down your opponent. The Wing Chun punch hurts a lot!
http://www.lawingchun.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I await my opponent's response.
Charr

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for his prompt response, while personally apologizing for my delayed response.

...

My opponent claims that "About 1,000 boxers died,", however, he does not specify whether the 1000 boxers died "in the last month", or "in the last millennium", nor does he cite a certifiable source. His first link speaks of ONE boxer's death, and his second link speaks of 40 recorded deaths, not 1000. His third link is simply an irrelevant Wikipedia article on "Boxing". I would like to ask my opponent where he pulled this unsupported statistic from, and if he could please specify what time frame this statistic is addressing.

Nowhere in any of his links anything is stated about "1000" recorded deaths.

...

Additionally, one cannot deny that boxing, by itself, is the second purest form of sport, next to running. One also cannot deny that significant injuries do arise from the sport. However, my opponent must realize that boxers are COMPLETELY AWARE of the possibility of injury, and that boxing is their PERSONAL CHOICE. If we ban boxing simply because of the injuries it may cause, should we not also ban hangliding? Or smoking? Or gambling? Or bungee jumping?

If these boxers were being exploited, or coerced into the arena, or ignorant of the consequences that may ensue, than that would be a different case. However, in professional boxing, boxers enter the arena out of their own FREE WILL. Not because they have no choice. But because they enjoy the sport, and the sense of self discipline it supplies.

...

My opponent must also realize that every attempt is being made to ENSURE THE SAFETY and the well-being of boxers. We have emergency medical attention present by the ringside, if necessary. We have referees to prohibit an opponent from going too far. We have medical checks, boxing gloves, and division by weight to maintain the equality of the sport. We have even gone as far as providing free medical insurance, so boxers do not have to cover the cost of potential injuries.[1] We have the best the government can do to PREVENT permanent injuries to boxers. If we were to abolish a sport simply based on the number of sporting injuries that result from it, should we not first ban Street Luging? Or BMX? Or surfing? Or cheer leading? Because these sports have a much higher rate of injury than boxing.[2]

...

"Boxing is intended to harm others.", quips my opponent. I cannot deny the absolute reality of this. Like running, being one of the the purest forms of sport, it's beauty is in the simplicity of which it pits man against his own limits. Now, it's no use denying it. Boxing IS done with intention to harm. However, man is NATURALLY aggressive. So why go around denying and suppressing this nature rather than apply and release this violence constructively? And it's not just boxing, because any contact sport, be it, rugby, lacrosse, hockey, or football, can be brutal.

In fact, unlike the opposition would like you to believe, boxing in fact has, many benefits. In fact, regardless of the fact that "boxing is intended to harm others", many boxers claim that boxing helps build discipline and release bottled up feelings of violence. For example, when the world famous boxer Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) was asked whether he regretted taking up the sport, he was recorded replying "Not at all!", along with stating how boxing helped him build discipline and a stronger sense of self.[3]

...

Additionally, there is no conceivable reason why A BAN AGAINST BOXING WOULD ONLY SERVE TO DRIVE IT UNDERGROUND. With the enormous amount of fans and desire for the sport, the popularity of boxing would only result in holding underground tournaments with extremely compromised safety features, in the case of a ban. So, even if we were looking for an abolition of boxing, a ban would only serve to further endanger the lives you want to protect.

So in conclusion, while my opponent has presented some valid and legitimate points, he has failed to present enough reason to instigate a full on ban.

===Citations===

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] http://itthing.com...
[3] See above video.
Debate Round No. 2
ethopia619

Pro

I graciously thank my opponent for posting his arguments. Good luck!

NOTE: I'm sorry, but I cannot view videos posted here. Sorry! Well, onto the debate!

1. 1,000 Deaths

Fine. I will state several sources that back up my argument. I will state that 1,000 boxers died "in the last millennium, I guess. Well, let's move on.
http://wiki.answers.com...
http://articles.latimes.com... (I know that it says 0.13 participants die out of 1,000 participants, which means about 13 per participants. However, we have way more than 1,000 participants.)
http://www.eastsideboxing.com... (This proves deaths that are caused from boxing.)

2. Boxing Sport

I realize that boxers are aware of possible injuries. They entered at their will. They did not die because of their will, but of the fact that they got beat up by their opponent. I see what you mean, but I cannot very adequately refute that argument. However, the deaths are caused by boxing or injuries from boxing, not by their will as stated in these sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://ejmas.com...

3. Safety in Boxing

True, but this still cannot prevent brain damage when you "knock-out" your opponent. Besides, if you are angry, you cannot control yourself. You kill your opponent. Referees cannot stop you. Therefore, we should ban boxing.

4. Boxing Harms and Benefits

Yes, thank you for agreeing to my point. I agree that you cannot deny that, just like how I could barely deny the part of free will. Muhammad Ali died from boxing, too. It may give discipline, but it gives it for death.

5. Enjoyment

It may be fun to watch boxing, but it is certainly not fun for the boxers. This is like with the Gladiators. Gladiators fight, spectators watch or laugh when someone gets "knocked- out." Therefore, it is not exactly fun.

==> Conclusion

As anyone can possibly see, we should ban boxing. He has not touched some arguments I made. I wish him and the readers good luck and happy holidays. Thank you.
Charr

Con

Oh, thank you for informing me of that. I will attempt to steer clear of citing videos as sources in the future.

...

1. 1,000 Deaths.

I would like to thank my opponent for posting these sources. However, I would like to question the reliability of said sources.

My opponent's first source is a WikiAnswer speaking of 1,465 total recorded fatalities in the year 2007. However, I would like to question the real reliability and the credibility of said source. Anyone, including me, can go and edit your source immediately, bending the statistic to my will. In fact, this is a controversial topic seeing as there are many conflicting WikiAnswers on said topic.[1] So I believe that, unless my opponent is able to prove the credibility of said source, this source should be considered illegitimate.

My opponents second source SEEMED reliable, but the way my opponent phrased it is misleading, whether intentional or not. My opponent stated "0.13 participants die out of 1000 participants", and states that this "means about 13 per participants". I would like to clarify this on the behalf of my opponent. What the quote actually SHOULD state is that "13 participants die out of every >1,000,000< participants.", that is, if we are to actually believe that there are 0.13 deaths per 1,000.

I would also like to point out that your source is out of date. This statistic is from June 4th, 1995, and may not reflect the actual rate of death/participants after 15 years of medical advances.

My opponents third link is completely irrelevant to the issue we are addressing.

However, I do accept that claim, because I wish to discontinue this trivial topic and also acknowledge the likelihood of 1000 deaths over a period of one millennium.

...

2. Free will

I would first like to thank my opponent for agreeing with my point.

In this section my opponent claims that boxers die not of their own free will. However, my opponent has made an obvious logical fallacy, for this is irrelevant and not part of my original point at all. My point was that boxers were COMPLETELY INFORMED of the potential consequences of boxing, and they acknowledge that DEATH IS A POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCE. So no, they did not choose to die, however, they did choose to enter the ring KNOWING that this could result in death.

...

3. Safety in Boxing

My opponent states that we "cannot prevent brain damage when you 'knock-out' your opponent", however, this ties into my free will argument, because boxers acknowledge the potential for brain damage. Therefore, I can safely state that we are not responsible for ensuing brain damage.

My opponent also states that "if you are angry, you cannot control yourself... referees cannot stop you.". I would like to request an example of said quote. Alone, without a source, this is just another irrelevant, opinionated, unsupported claim.

"Therefore, we should ban boxing." No. Potential injuries is NOT a justifiable reason to ban something, especially when the participant is informed of these potential injuries. If society functioned based on your logic, then gambling, BMX riding, smoking, alcohol, surfing, and cheerleading, amongst many more should also be banned, having the same potential for injury. However, these activities are not banned, proving that you need more than simply the potential of injury to justify the abolition of something.

...

4. Boxing Harms and Benefits.

You're welcome. I thought you needed it ;)

Yes, I realize that death is an unfortunate possibility, but my point is that boxing is not the barbaric activity that many people believe it to be. It is constructive and has the potential for building discipline and releasing tension.

Recall that earlier I stated "Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) was asked whether he regretted taking up the sport... replying "Not at all!".[2] This proves that even AFTER experiencing the possibility of death and the actual consequences and pain boxing brings, there ARE boxers who believe that the fulfillment boxing provides is worth the consequences.

...

5. Enjoyment

In this argument, my opponent claims that "It may be fun to watch boxing, but it is certainly not fun for the boxers.", whilst likening boxing to the gladiators of ancient Rome. I believe that this proves just how little understanding my opponent truly has for the sport of boxing.

First of all, if you read carefully, my opponent has not even directly stated WHY boxing is not fun for boxers. All my opponent has done was liken Boxers to Gladiators, and add "spectators watch or laugh when someone gets 'knocked- out.'". I honestly have no idea, under what line of logical fallacy, how he arrived at the conclusion, "Therefore, it is not exactly fun."

Second of all, my opponent must realize that Boxers and Gladiators are TWO SEPARATE THINGS-

The gladiators of Rome were FORCED to participate in combat. Boxers CHOOSE to box.
The gladiators of Rome DUEL TO THE DEATH. Boxers only aim to SCORE POINTS through hits, and/or KNOCKOUT the opposition.

I mean, the very fact that most boxers are free to drop boxing if they are miserable, yet they don't, PROVES that boxers enjoy the sport itself.

So the sport is enjoyable for both participants and spectators, and "Therefore, it is not exactly fun.", is a misinformed opinion.

Additionally, my opponent seems to be holding the opinion that Gladiators did not enjoy combat, which is an opinionated, biased, unsupported claim made based on no apparent reasoning at all. I mean, how do you know that all Gladiators suffered? Perhaps some actually enjoyed the sport, for all we know.

...

6. Not a Viable Solution.

My opponent, for some reason, has not touched this argument at all, so for clarity's sake, I will restate it here. Even after acknowledging my opponent's incomplete reasoning and his failure to justify enough reason for a ban, and even if we WERE to actually abolish the sport, a ban is simply NOT a reasonable solution. I mean, with the popularity of boxing by itself, all a ban would serve to do is force matches underground, where safety would be even more severely compromised.[3][4] So, by raising a ban, all we would do is endanger more lives, which is the opposite of what we want to do, and what my opponent suggests with his points.

...

===Conclusion===

As anyone can possibly see, under society's policies today, the mere potential for injury is not enough to justify a ban on boxing, as I stated above. So in the end, I don't even have to refute ANY of my opponent's points, for my opponent bases his entire argument on the potential dangers boxing provides, and that alone is not enough justification for a ban.

So, unless my opponent can bring in some other reason to ban such a sport as boxing, I do not see why we should ban such a noble pastime.

===Sources===

[1] http://wiki.answers.com...
[2] See above video.
[3] http://www.15rounds.com...
[4] http://www.profighting-fans.com... (Example of one such fansite)
Debate Round No. 3
ethopia619

Pro

Thank you, Charr, for your somewhat fast responses. Well, I end my side of this debate.

Yes. WikiAnswer may be, sometimes, an unreliable source. However, I would like to tell you that in http://wiki.answers.com... it was answered by Di nozzo. If you check out Di nozzo's record, it states that Di nozzo has 12 Trust points and is a bronze contributor. http://wiki.answers.com... He seems to be a somewhat reliable answer to some questions. It matches evenly to my other sources Therefore, WikiAnswer can be a somewhat reliable source.

I'm sorry out misleading you on my phrasing. Well, it is the LA times. You cannot debate about that. If you think that it is unbelievable, well, read it again. For your convenience, I will state the source again. http://articles.latimes.com... . My source can be used, because I have stated that more than 1,000 participants in boxing died in the last millennium. Thus, I will be able to use it and you cannot refute anything about that.

Well, I guess that you win the point of free will.

Okay... I don't know where your going with the free will part. Well, brain damage is still a cause of boxing. I will give you an example: " Above all things, I must not get angry. If I do get angry I knock all the teeth out of the mouth of the poor wretch who has angered me." ~Franz Schubert. http://www.brainyquote.com... . Thus, being angry will cause yourself to lose control and perhaps kill the other person. We should ban boxing because of the potential, very deadly injury. Correct. Gambling is horrible, so it should be bad. Same as smoking or drinking alcohol.

Well, I gave you one, you gave me one. Ha ha. Yes death is an unfortunate possibility, but boxing is considered barbaric by some people that believe that violence never solves anything. Muhammad Ali, must have been those
people that just love to beat another guy up, I guess. He destroyed some people, felt victorious, and then regretted the fact that he joined boxing when he was about to die.

Possibly, but, logically, boxing and gladiator fighting are basically close to each other. You fight until you get "knocked-out" or fight until you give up. Logically, it is close to being the same thing. Boxing is NOT fun for the boxers because of the fact that you have to attack and block at the same time. If you happen to drop your defenses, even for a second, the opponent may get the hit, and you would drop down onto the ground. Let's remember about brain damage, broken bones, and black eyes. "The gladiators of Rome DUEL TO THE DEATH." ~ Charr. Absolutely false. I hope you paid attention in history class, because the gladiator who gives up lets the Roman people know. The citizens, the officers, and the president of the games choose to let him live or to let him die. Thus, gladiator of Rome do not duel to death. Some gladiators receive "The Wooden Sword" which means that he, the gladiator,not have to fight again. This is the highest honor. Well, boxers may feel well. If they were sick, they would definitely not fight, unless it was the finals or something related to that. All gladiators suffered from gladiator fighting, because of the fact that they would at least be bruised. I do not hold the opinion that gladiators did not enjoy combat.

If we ban boxing, this will actually save more lives, because of the fact of brain damage and the thought of a boxer holding a grudge on you. Banning boxing would save more lives than without banning boxing. Therefore, banning boxing is pretty much a reasonable solution. Now, we know that having a match of underground is a bit insane. However, I see your point, but there is still the fact that boxing should be banned. Some people have died because of a boxer's grudge if they lose.

==> Conclusion

Overall, we should ban boxing. I have shown you the harms, refuted my opponent's points, while he left some of my arguments untouched. However, I thank my opponent for this entertaining debate and wish him good luck on his future debates. I wish the readers and Charr happy holidays. Thank you.

~ Yami Yugi
Charr

Con

Okay, I suppose I will wrap things up here.

...

1. 1000 Deaths.

Like I stated in the round before, I do not care to carry this argument further. I have already accepted this statistic, if you are willing to state it as "1,000 deaths in the past millennium of boxing". However, please note that this is simply a statistic, and not a valid argument.

...

2. Free Will

My opponent agrees with me on the basis that boxers enter the ring out of their own free will. My opponents states that "I don't know where your going with the free will part". So allow me to clarify. This means that my opponent cannot base his arguments on grounds of exploitation or coercion. This also means that to an extent, we, as the people are NOT responsible for the injuries that boxers sustain in the ring.

The potential for injury in boxing is comparable to the potential injuries in many other recreational activities and sports. Yet scuba diving is not banned, and neither is surfing. This proves that the potential for injury does not justify the abolition of something.

...

3. Safety in Boxing.

My opponent's argument clearly falls apart here. Instead of acknowledging the fact that extensive safety measures, such as ringside medical servicing, physicians, are available, and constantly updated, to ensure the safety of boxers, my opponent tries to base his arguments in this category on the belief that "if you are angry... You kill your opponent.".

Additionally, instead of using an actual, disputable example to back this up, he decides to use the quote-
"Above all things, I must not get angry. If I do get angry I knock all the teeth out of the mouth of the poor wretch who has angered me."

And then he states that-
"Thus, being angry will cause yourself to lose control and perhaps kill the other person."

Can you believe this? He is basing his arguments, and drawing a conclusion, from a quote! If you think that a quote suffices as evidence, well wouldn't this-

"A boxer must exercise and develop every part of his body."[1]
"Boxing brings out my aggressive instinct, not necessarily a killer instinct."[2]
"Boxing is the ultimate challenge. There's nothing that can compare to testing yourself the way you do every time you step in the ring."[3]

Be able to prove my arguments?

But it doesn't. This is because quotes are subjective, simply the words and opinions of ONE individual. Quotes are not sufficient evidence. Thus YOU DID NOT MANAGE TO PROVE YOUR POINT.

And since you could not manage to dig up the SPECIFIC, real life example of a boxing match where a referee was not able to restrain a boxer resulting in death, your point is invalid, and simply a personal prejudice, because you have no proof.

...

4. Boxing Harms and Benefits

Here, my opponents argument falls apart again. He makes obnoxious claims, saying that "Muhammad Ali, must have been those people that just love to beat another guy up", and "boxing is considered barbaric by some people that believe that violence never solves anything".

First of all, I would like to point out that those claims are completely subjective and unsupported. It is obvious to all that my opponent is simply trying to base his argument on a disdainful sense of disapproval, and upon realizing that he cannot win through any objective means, posts BS claims to attempt to back his opinions. So it is clear to all that he has not managed to refute any of my points on the constructive benefits boxing provides, and the fact that boxing at heart is simply a enjoyable sport rather than the barbaric monstrosity my opponent would have you believe.

...

5. Enjoyment.

Tying with the previous argument is the dispute on whether boxing is enjoyable for the boxer or not. My opponent opened his argument by likening boxers to gladiators. "Therefore", my opponent quips, "it is not exactly fun.". However, he does not explain to us WHY boxers and gladiators cannot enjoy the sport. He draws a conclusion from nothing at all.

After I prompted him by reminding him of this obvious logical fallacy, he says "All gladiators suffered... they would at least be bruised". However, this is yet another logical fallacy. Many examples of sports have pain linked within it. Football hurts. Sprinting causes the lungs to burn. Does it logically follow that neither football or sprinting is enjoyable?

I wish to also remind any spectators that boxers may choose to drop the sport at any time if they believe it to be not enjoyable. The sheer fact that people still box should already be proof enough.

...

6. Not a Viable Solution.

My opponent states "If we ban boxing, this will actually save more lives, because of the fact of brain damage and the thought of a boxer holding a grudge on you." and "Banning boxing would save more lives than without banning boxing.".

However, My opponent fails to refute why the sheer popularity of boxing would not simply force boxing underground in the case of a ban. So I refute his second statement. Banning boxing would probably cost MORE lives. In the case of illegal underground matches, there would be NO ringside medic, NO referees. Safety would be even further compromised if we ban boxing. So therefore, my opponents statement-

"Therefore, banning boxing is pretty much a reasonable solution", is illegitimate.

...

===Conclusion===

My opponent redundantly states "he (my opponent) left some of my arguments untouched.". However, we can all clearly see the absurdity of this statement. You gave me six arguments, I gave you six refutations. The irony of my opponent's statement is that he has not refuted my greatest argument of all.

The fact is, most of my opponents arguments are based off of the potential injuries of Boxing. However, if this was proper justification by itself, Gambling, Hangliding, Bungee jumping, Surfing, Cheerleading, Alcohol, and Smoking should also be banned. However, society deems it not, proving that you need more than potential injuries to justify the abolition of something.

So, overall, we should NOT ban boxing. I have shown you the benefits, refuted my opponent's points, while he left some of my arguments untouched. However, I thank my opponent for this entertaining debate and wish him good luck on his future debates. I wish the readers and my opponent happy holidays. Thank you.

I apologize for any pretension or condescension, as it was done in the spirit of the debate. ;)
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by guitar 4 years ago
guitar
Charr u r so pro at this
Posted by jgorman 6 years ago
jgorman
Voted neg because they did better analysis and frankly did just about everything better, including their evidence. Pro lost points in my book for saying that Muhammad Ali died from boxing; while it gave him Parkinsons' Disease, he is still very much alive.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
wow my spelling is terrible.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
*Chrysippus.

Also not that it makes any difference, but boxing cauesws 13 deaths per 100,000 not 1 million.
Posted by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
Same RFD as hrysippus.

@ loserboi - Mixed martial arts beats boxing hands down
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
Simple enough. Pro used bad logic, irrelevant or untrustworthy sources, and made-up statistics. Con did not. Auto win for Con.
Posted by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
Sorry on round 5. I end should be I'll end.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
WTF? boxing is like the 2nd greatest sport next to football
Posted by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
wing chun is chinese boxing.
Posted by Superboy777 6 years ago
Superboy777
lol ur opponent is good charr
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
ethopia619CharrTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Cunit0814 6 years ago
Cunit0814
ethopia619CharrTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Zilla2112 6 years ago
Zilla2112
ethopia619CharrTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by jgorman 6 years ago
jgorman
ethopia619CharrTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
ethopia619CharrTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
ethopia619CharrTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
ethopia619CharrTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06