The Instigator
astrosfan
Pro (for)
Losing
50 Points
The Contender
SportsGuru
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

Wikipedia should be a valid source for projects in schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 3/12/2008 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,965 times Debate No: 3200
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (27)

 

astrosfan

Pro

wikipedia should be should be used to do research because it has information quality on almost any topic you need. Because of how Wikipedia is set up it allows people to talk and in groups choose what is the right information. because of this ability to have quality information on many topics is why we should allow wikipedia o be use for projects in schools
SportsGuru

Con

First, I thank my opponent for creating this debate and ask that the voters vote on who did the better debating rather than which side you agree with. Now, as you can see, my opponent has not given any definitions. As such, my opponent must accept mine as along I can provide a source that shows that the definition is accurate. The definitions I cite are as follows:

Valid- sound; just; well-founded (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Just- in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Sound- competent, sensible, or valid (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Source- a book, statement, person, etc., supplying information (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Project- Education. a supplementary, long-term educational assignment necessitating personal initiative, undertaken by an individual student or a group of students. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

School- a large number of fish or aquatic animals of one kind swimming together (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Should- must; ought (http://dictionary.reference.com...)

Now, with combining my opponent's burden of proof, the resolution my opponent created and the definitions, my opponent must prove that Wikipedia should be a valid source for projects in schools. Here are my first round arguments:

1.My opponent says that Wikipedia SHOULD be a valid source. This insinuates that there must be a reason that it must/ought to be a valid source. However, my opponent gives no reason as to why that it should be changed into a valid source. Thus, it must be seen that my opponent is not supporting the resolution and must lose until such a reason is given.

2.Fish/other aquatic animals cannot understand human languages. Valid is defined as sound which is defined as competent/sensible. It is certainly not sensible to use a source that cannot be understood and this source would not be competent in supplying information. Thus, it cannot be considered sound, which means Wikipedia cannot be considered valid.

3.Fish have no means to use Wikipedia. The Wikipedia my opponent is arguing for exists only on the Internet. Sadly, for my opponent, computers and other Internet-reaching devices do not exist in water by themselves. Moreover, aquatic animals do not have the digits necessary to type on a computer to use Wikipedia. Thus, Wikipedia cannot be considered competent and thus cannot be considered sound. Hence, it cannot be considered a valid source for projects in schools.

4.Fish must keep moving to survive. In order for the respiratory system of fish to work, they must constantly be in motion. As using a computer would require them to stand still, using Wikipedia would require them to die. This certainly cannot be considered sensible, sound or valid thus making Wikipedia not a valid source for projects in schools.

I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
astrosfan

Pro

first to provide my definition of key words.

1.school- 1: an organization that provides instruction: a: an institution for the teaching of children http://www.merriam-webster.com...
reasons to prefer my definition over my opponents.
1. fairness- my opponents definition create an unfair debate because there is no way to argue that fish can use wikipedia, so the only way to have a fair and realistic debate is to use my definition.
2. writers' intent- my definition is better because it is the first definition on the page my opponent's is the third meaning the writer of this scource meant for mine to be used over my opponent's
3. framer's intent- the creater of this topic (me) meant for this debate to be about wikipedia being used in schools as i define not as my opponent dose.now this is supported when i say "people in my first speach and have had the meaning of the debate to be towords that.
4. reasonablitty- my difinition is more reasonable because we are people and we could never be able to look at this topic from the point of view of a fish so the only reasonable to look at this is though the veiw of people.

to defened against my opponent's attacks

1. my opponent claims that i give no reasons why we should use wiki but extend from me first speach "because of this ability to have quality information on many topics is why we should allow wikipedia o be use for projects in schools" these are two reasons wikipedia should be allowed in schools.
2. group my opponent's 2,3,and,4 arguments. first because of the difinition of school as being "an institution for the teaching of children" none of this arguments aplly to this topic. second there is no reason that fish will not gain the ablity to understand english, and there is evidance that they will.
http://theinfosphere.org... the reverse scuba suit appears in the episode of futurama "A Big Piece of Garbage" where the fish reacts to human comands meaning that they have an understanding of the way humans speak. also because it has claws/feet/hands that could be used to type they could use computers while using this suit. and because it allow fish to walk on land they would not die because of being in on spot. this argument still support my side because should mean ought allows the use of wikipedia to be in the future and the present.

now to and more support to my arguments
1. wikipedia is as good as Encyclopedia Britannica meaning that if we should be allowed to use Encyclopedia Britannica on project we should be able to use wikipedia http://news.bbc.co.uk...
2. wikipedia has 9.25 million articles meaning that it covers many topics for school projects.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. evenif wikipedia is change whit false information it is changed quickly.http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.wikipedia is democray at work because people work together to decide what is to be posted and what not meanig that it take many people's points of view in order to get the right information.http://en.wikipedia.org...

so to give the voting issuse
1.all my opponent's arguments are based on one definition which i have proven to be wrong so there is no offence against my case
2.becaus i have meet my burden of proof and have give reasons to support the topic that my opponent has not attacked
SportsGuru

Con

My opponent begins by attacking my definition by providing his own and then proceeding to state why his is preferred. I will show why all of his reasons are wrong.

1.Fairness- My opponent states that there is no way to argue that fish can use Wikipedia thus making this debate unfair. It should be noted that Con should not be punished simply because Con was creative with their argument and took a path that Pro assumed would not be taken. Furthermore, my opponent goes on to argue how fish could use Wikipedia later in his argument contradicting himself and making this point needed to be ignored. Finally, fairness is not essential as shown in this debate (http://www.debate.org...). Con had to argue about a culture that only Pro had knowledge to, yet as the votes show, still won.

2.Writer's intent- My opponent makes a grave misunderstanding. The order of definitions is not in order of which is better, but rather which is more commonly used. In the definition of table(http://dictionary.reference.com...), the definition concerning the piece of furniture come before the definition concerning the action in Student Congress. This does not mean that the earlier definition is better, just that it is more common. Hence, this point should be ignored.

3.Framer's intent- My opponent says that his is the only definition that fits the framer's intent. First, I challenge him to prove with conclusive evidence that what he says is the framer's intent is in fact the framer's intent. Now, my opponent supports that his definition is the only one that fits because of the fact that he says people in his 1st speech. However, lets look at the context. "Because of how Wikipedia is set up it allows people to talk and in groups choose what is the right information." The only sentence with the word people simply states that people regulate it. This does not mean that only people use it. For example, people regulate fish bowls. That does not mean that only people will use fish bowls. Thus, my definition also fits the framer's intent and this point must be ignored.

4.Reasonability- Until my opponent proves that it is impossible to look from the perspective of a fish this must be ignored. Furthermore, it is surely more reasonable to try to find a different perspective that might not be flawed than continue to look from the human perspective that is obviously flawed.

As all of my opponents reasons should be ignored, there is no reason for my definition to be superseded by his and therefore mine stands.

My opponent says is reason for making Wikipedia valid is "because of this ability to have quality information on many topics is why we should allow wikipedia o be use for projects in schools". Wikipedia may have information on many topics, but even if you accept my opponent's definition, this is actually a reason to not make it valid. There are many superfluous articles that can distract children from work such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org...) or this one (http://en.wikipedia.org...). My opponent also states that Wikipedia has quality information. However, let us look at the definition of quality and excellence:

Quality: high grade; superiority; excellence: wood grain of quality

Excellence: the fact or state of excelling; superiority; eminence

As we can see, quality is defined as being superior to something. However, my opponent never states what Wikipedia is superior to. As such, for the sake of the debate, I will say it is superior to a bag of poop. Although it may be superior to a bag of poop, this does not mean it should be competent/valid as a bag of poop certainly is not. Thus, my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof.

As it has been shown that my definition stands rather than my opponents, my 2-5 arguments are left unopposed and I extend them into the next round. My opponent then tries to pass of an episode of Futurama as evidence. Please notice that this is an unreliable source containing unrealistic things such as a 2-D world, trips to the edge of the universe, and Richard Nixon succeeding in becoming president again. I urge my opponent to gather information from a reliable source as otherwise this argument is invalid. Furthermore, this article (http://media.www.elvaq.com...), show that over 50% of aquatic life will be gone by 2050 at the current rate. Therefore, as long the rate continues, even if the technology my opponent alludes to is created in 3000, all fish will have already died.

Now to my opponent's arguments:

1.My opponent then states that Wikipedia is as good as Encyclopedia Britannica and supports this with an article. However, I urge you to look at the date of the article "Thursday, 15 December 2005, 10:42 GMT". This article was written over two years ago. This is more than ample time for vandalism to occur on Wikipedia and thus this article cannot be considered valid. Furthermore, the article only states that they are close to equal in science. So, you are out of luck if you are not researching science. Even then, the article states that Wikipedia had 39 more errors. Thus, the article cannot and does not support my opponent's statement and this point must be ignored.

2.I have already shown why the huge variety is bad.

3.My opponent says that the mistakes are fixed quickly, but does not say they are fixed instantaneously. He still admits there is a period where Wikipedia is not competent/valid. As Wikipedia is not valid all the time, it should not be considered valid all the time.

4.My opponent says that Wikipedia is good because it is democracy in action. However, this democracy in action is why it is bad. I am sorry, but I do not want a lunatic with a computer rewriting history. The experts should be the only ones to change information.

For those of you who for whatever reason do not accept my definition and want to ignore it, I offer this alternative argument:

If you look at my opponent's arguments, they make a big assumption. That is that the world exists as we as a race percieve it and we are not dreaming or in a false reality (ex. The Matrix). I challenge my opponent to prove this to be true. Otherwise, he cannot prove that Wikipedia, sources, or schools of any kind exist and his arguments fall apart.

As you can see, all my attacks stand and my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof. I await his closing statements.
Debate Round No. 2
astrosfan

Pro

first off on the debate over definitions my give no reason to prefer his definition over mine so you should take my over his because he has given no reasons why his is superior to mine no at the point where I can prove that it is even 1% better then his you still use mine over his.
so extend my definition that school is 1: an organization that provides instruction: a: an institution for the teaching of children
reasons to prefer
1.fairness- extend that it is imposable to debate over if fish could use wikipedia. no this creates a double bind ether my opponent says that fish could use wikipedia so we can debate it ability to be useful or he concedes my definition and we debate on the topic if it should be a valid source.
2.writer's intent- my opponent supports my own point with his answer when he states that it is first because it is more commonly used thus because this would mean that there is a higher chance that definition is the correct on for this situation
3.framer's intent- my opponent wants me to prove that what i said was the framer's intent when I'm the framer so i would have the best understanding of the my intent for the debate. secondly we can see the intent of the framer though definition of other words of the topic in this case the word project as my opponent defines as "Education. a supplementary, long-term educational assignment necessitating personal initiative, undertaken by an individual student or a group of students." because of both words students and personal we see that this is referring to people and not fish meaning in the context of the resolution you prefer my definition of school over his because of his own definition of project
4.Reasonability- now he claims that i have not proved that we can not look at it from the prospective of a fish but this as well creates a double bind for my opponent because only why to see this form the prospective of a fish would require fish to be able to use the internet meaning he would have to drop the argument about fish not being able to use wikipedia or he concedes my definition of school and we debate about people this is the only why to have an educational debate over the topic.

to defend against my opponent's attacks

first i would like to say that you shouldn't flow these arguments because i only have one speech that i should be reviewing the debate rather the having to go into details over argument made in his last round so it is abusive because i have little time to defend against them

1. my opponent claims that because there is a great verity is a bad, but turn this verity is good for 4 reason 1 because if you don't know about these topics this will increase your knowledge. 2 these quote distractions come from the in page link on wikipedia but these are limited to related articles to the the subjects so the improve the ability to learn turning my opponent's argument. 3 this is better then research with things like google if you search the inter internet because of the chance of going to inaporpreate website meaning that wikipedia is still better then searching the internet. 4 these random thing could be what they are suppose to research ex: what is your favorite pokemon for a survey so having the list of pokemon would be helpful.

2. my opponents arguments 2-4 are all based on his definition so because of the reason to prefer my definition these should be disregarded, but to answer them anyway. first he claims that futurama is bad source to use because of 2-D worlds, trips to end of the universe, and Nixon. But none of these can be seen as bad because he provides no reasons why there may not be a flat planet, or reason why we could not reach the end of the universe. And in defense of Nixon the constitution states "nobody can be elected more than twice" but because Nixon is using Bender's body the this don't effect he that why he has elected. secondly there is a prototype reverse scuba suit today so there is no reason to not believe that this could improve to what is in the show. http://www.technovelgy.com... . next he claims that � the fish will die but if you look at the article it says � the coral reefs will be gone not fish so the effect will only be minimal. As well if you believe in evolution that fish evolved to amphibians then to reptiles then to mammals then finally to human meaning in a way people are fish meaning that because I can use Wikipedia a type of fish is using Wikipedia.
Now to the real debate
1.My opponent argues that because this information is from 2005 it is too old but that is 3 years and no reason to believe that is too old. The he claim that there are mistakes in Wikipedia but because there are so few it is just as good as Encyclopedia Britannica which is allowed as a source on projects so why don't we let people use something just as good. Then claims they are equal on science but this is good because if they are as good Encyclopedia Britannica then this is a good source.
2.Cross apply my arguments why this verity of articles is good
3.Then the fact that all problems are not fix instantaneously but if you look at this page http://en.wikipedia.org... we see that the change are do at a rapid pace. Second pages can be locked to prevent vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.my opponent claims that because people who are not qualified can change Wikipedia it is not a valid source, but 1 there are experts how do change the information as well and 2 if students were to look on the internet they could still find bad information with no regulation so Wikipedia is still better then the plain internet

my opponent last argument is that nothing exists. To defend this think of it this why if if voting for con means nothing exist the nthe vote you just casted would not exist meaning the only vote that would matter would be the ones for pro because they would be the only ones that exist. So this turns all of his reason to vote con because if you vote for him you vote wouldn't count so regardless of the out come of the round I still win because votes for me are the only ones the exist. secondly we couldn't live in the matrix because have you ever seen someone randomly change in to a man in suit for no reason, also if we where in the matrix fish could use the internet because in the matrix anything can happen like people flying meaning again this turns his arguments.

so now for voters
1. because all my opponent's arguments are defensive there is no reason that wikipedia is bad just that it is not good so at the point that there is no neg on the topic if the is a 1% chance that wikipedia is good you vote pro.
2. because i have meet my burden of proof with all of the above arguments
3. because as i stated if you vote for con your vote doesn't count and the only ones that do are mine. so even if he has more vote his vote equal nothing and still will lose.
4. because my opponent's arguments have little evidence to support them besides definitions while i have provide evidence to support my side
5. because of all the contradictions that can prove my side you vot for the pro
SportsGuru

Con

My opponent begins by stating that his definition should be used because I have not given a reason why mine should be taken. However, let us look at this like a boss at a factory and the definitions are two products that can be made. Product A (my definition) was made first, is already being made and is successful when it is suggested that Product B (my opponent's definition) should be made. If there is no reason to make B over A, then the making of B is not going to supersede the making of A. Similarly, my opponent must provide a reason that his should supersede, not the other way around. Thus, I do not need to provide a reason. But, as my opponent prompts me to, I state the reason of utilitarianism. We must consider the fish to ensure the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of creatures for the greatest amount of time as my opponent's definition considers only one type of creature. I will now once again, show why my opponent's reasons for using his definition is invalid.

1.Fairness- My opponent fails to address the fact that he contradicts himself by arguing whether fish could use Wikipedia. Thus, all of his extrapolations including his "double-bind" are irrelevant. He also ignores and concedes the fact that fairness is not necessary. Thus, this point should be ignored.
2.Writer's intent- My opponent states that because a definition is more common, it is more likely to be the right one. However, lets once again take the table example. Does the fact that the definition concerning furniture being more common give it a higher chance of being right when a Representative wants to table an item? No, it obviously does not. Moreover, commonality has nothing do to with what the dictionary makers intended, which my opponent states writer's intent is about in his round 2 argument. Therefore, this point must be ignored.
3.Framer's intent - My opponent says we should accept what he says is the framer's intent because he is the framer. However, this allows the possibility of lying. He could of in fact had a different intent but changed it so it would be to his advantage. As he gives no proof that he is not lying, he cannot be a reliable source. Hence, this point must be ignored.
4.Reasonability- My opponent claims that for us to see from the perspective of fish, fish would have to be able to use the internet. However, this is not the only way. We could, for example, become pet psychics. Thus, my opponent's bind fails and this point must be ignored.

As you can see, there is no reason for my opponent's definition to be preferred, thus mine stands as the definition for this debate.

My opponent then says that my attacks are abusive because he should not have to go over them in his last round. However, these attacks are responses from my opponent's attacks in the earlier round. For this reason, my opponent is the one to blame, not me.

I will now address my opponents defenses:

1.A. The knowledge that is gained distracts a learner from the project causing them to fail, and have self-esteem problems. B. However, there are links on certain words in the article that lead to subjects unrelated thus negating this. C. As Google is not considered a valid source, this is unrelated. D. However, even if you are researching the pokemon one, there are still thousands of unrelated articles to be distracted by.
2.A. As my definition stands, my 2-4 arguments still stand remaining uncontested so far. B. A 2-D world does not mean that the earth is flat. It means there are 2 dimensions. My opponent is disproved by the Math TAKS test. In this test, there are questions about volume, which requires 3 dimensions. As the TAKS only uses things that exist, we must be in a 3-D world. C. As this website says (http://www.windows.ucar.edu...), there is no edge, so we can't go to it. D. In the Constitution, there is no exception for those with the same brain but different body. Hence, Nixon would not be eligible. E. Yes, but according to your source, it will not be made until 3000 by which all fish will be dead. F. Yes but if you look to the next paragraph it states "Coral reefs are indicators of environmental stress because they are quite persnickety about the conditions in which they live….Because coral reefs provide diverse habitats for an abundance of animals and plants, when the coral dies because of global warming it will devastate the oceanic ecosystem." So, where the coral dies, the fish die. Thus, all fish will be dead by 3000.

As you can see, all of my opponent's defense has been destroyed and his arguments are sufficiently attacked.

Moving to what my opponent calls the "real debate":

1.A Many things can happen in 3 years. Just ask any war expert. 3 years is plenty of time for more inaccuracies to be made and make the study invalid. B I stated that there are 39 more errors therefore making it worse than En. Britt. As such, a comparison of the two is not valid. C He then assumes that if the 2 are equal in science, they are equal in everything. This is an unwarranted assumption and until my opponent proves this true with evidence, it is false.
2.As the plain internet is not considered a valid source, this comparison is invalid.

My opponent commits the straw-man fallacy and says I argue that nothing exists. If you press "Ctrl + F" and type in "nothing exists", you will only find it in my opponent's argument. I simply advocated that what we perceive is not without a doubt correct. My opponent's examples of a matrix only come from a movie (http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com...). As my opponent as no experience living in a matrix, he cannot be a source for what goes on in one. Thus, my argument stands.

Addressing my opponent's final speech:

1.If you look, all of my arguments challenge my opponent to show how Wikipedia is a valid source or to show that our perception is correct. As such, this point is invalid.
2.My opponent has not met his burden of proof as the one article he gave does not fully support him. Thus, he fails on the burden of proof.
3.This is based on a fallacy, which I have already exposed.
4.Sorry, but I do have evidence (def. and an article) and it is YOUR burden that contains the need for evidence.
5.My opponent as listed no valid contradictions thus this must be ignored.

So, as all of my arguments stand, my opponent's arguments are destroyed, and my opponent fails to uphold the burden of proof which he needs to do in order to no lose and I have upheld my burden of refutation, the only logical vote is for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by commonprotocol 7 years ago
commonprotocol
At the risk of being accused of fixing a vote, I handed all 7 points to pro, not because I feel pro is worthy of recognition but rather because I found con's arguments to be so awful. Just to clarify Con seems to operate in a world where he not only doesn't have to justify his definitions but words also have no contextual meaning. While I'm sure con thinks himself quite clever for absolutely derailing what was sure to be a sub-par debate anyways, all he does is look childish.
Posted by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
well i have one vote. i hate the character limit
Posted by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
i would sign up to judge but i'm not going to be out any time soon
Posted by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
well my opponent still has not challenged and has not been on for over a week so it could be an easy win
Posted by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
can i have your topic and you can have mine because i can rape at the one you have and i have no idea what to do with the one i have
and if not then i can help you and you can tell me what the hell my topic means
Posted by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
well you don't want to debate me over hegemony i have a huge file from UTNIF that has anything i need
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Well, I WAS going to take your debate, but it seems beemor beat me to the punch.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Woot! opponent forfeiting 2 rounds = breaking :)
Posted by astrosfan 9 years ago
astrosfan
lucky your opponent didn't post real arguments, but you could still lose if the judges don't buy what your saying. but for my debate it comes down to if the judges like my framework, but there is a good chance that they will because my topic was one they said needed to be changed so they will probably be nice and try to make the debate fair
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
read the comic "looking for group"(ww.lfgcomic.com). it is of richard.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: although fishes seemed weird and off topic con really pulled it off last round
Vote Placed by commonprotocol 7 years ago
commonprotocol
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
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 MistahKurtz 8 years ago
MistahKurtz
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 8 years ago
Corycogley77479
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by astrosfan 8 years ago
astrosfan
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
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 SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
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 Mattowander 8 years ago
Mattowander
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
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 clarkgagag 9 years ago
clarkgagag
astrosfanSportsGuruTied
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