The Instigator
Smarticles
Pro (for)
Losing
40 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Winning
69 Points

Woman are equal to men

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: 1/28/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,567 times Debate No: 2235
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (35)

 

Smarticles

Pro

Woman are equal to men. They just don't do the same things. Men are better than woman at some things, and woman are better than men at some things. I do not understand guys who think men are dominant. How can they?
Korezaan

Con

"Equal" is defined as "as great as; the same as" by dictionary.com.

Men are clearly not equal to women and vice versa. Women have wider hips, women have larger breasts, women have different hypothalamuses, women have different brain composition, men have external genital protrusions, men have different hormones, men have more hair.

All of the above is "generally speaking" btw.

My opponent agrees:
"They just don't do the same things. Men are better than woman at some things, and woman are better than men at some things."

Women are clearly not equal to men. They are different. "Equal" does not allow for any sort of difference. If the topic was "Women should be treated the same way men are treated" I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth. However, when you're trying to say women are THE SAME AS men, I'll have to vehemently disagree.

I agree though, when they say "I do not understand guys who think men are dominant." I do not believe men are dominant, nor deserve to be dominant, nor ARE dominant. But all those are a different story and a different debate, because here we are talking about if women and men are equal.

And they're not.

Thank god too, cause if men and women were equal then we'd have to not be human in order to reproduce.
Debate Round No. 1
Smarticles

Pro

First and foremost you are taking the definition far far outside of the context of this debate. The context that we need to see here can be viewed within my first speech as men and women being metaphorically equal.

You then try to prove that my context is wrong by citing a definition from dictionary.com as if it is the only source in the world and then end all of sources. This however is false. Dictionary.com itself has no fewer than 14 different definitions for exactly what equal is therefor I cite a new definition.

Equal: like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the same rank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.

This definition uses two students of equal brilliance. The students are not literally 100% equal like you're are trying to portray. They are in fact simply equal in their capacity. Another definition if you will:

Equal: Evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest.

Once again this is not saying that the two or more things are equal but simply that they are balanced which is what I am arguing for.

A third example perhaps. Look specifically to our constitution. It says, "all men are created equal" right? Does this mean that all men are created 100% the same? No not at all, it simply means they have equal rights which is what my resolution is in pertinence to.

You attempt to take my resolution and blow it out of context. Under your logic you could win every debate by twisting my own words against me. This destroys the entire purpose of fair debate and takes away all of the ground I have in this round to debate on. You, and my voters, need to look at the context of this round. Simply making the resolution mean anything you want it to defeats the entire point of debate.

So onto my case, let me sight some examples from you.

"I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth."

My response? Yeah, exactly. You just conceded the entire debate and lost the round. Thank you for agreeing with me =)
Korezaan

Con

"My response? Yeah, exactly. You just conceded the entire debate and lost the round. Thank you for agreeing with me =)"

That's basically her entire case.

She's a shifting advocacy. I call abuse.

Alright so to clarify to all of you, the term "SHIFTING ADVOCACY" is used in formal debate, and it's basically what it sounds: the affirmative position, or the 'instigator' on this site, is changing their position. Now, this is abusive because the job of the opposing team, the negative position, or the 'contender' on this site, has to prove the instigator wrong. However, the contender can't do his/her job at all if the instigator is just going to continually change their case. Her making a COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY NEW argument in R2 is abusive because it basically shows that she's willing to basically change to another position - another interpretation of the resolution - anytime I take out one of her points. Now, at this point she's probably just going to come up in her next round and just say "Oh it was OBVIOUS that this debate was going to be about the moral equity of women and men" (Well actually she already had, "
You attempt to take my resolution and blow it out of context."), but that in turn leads to Another reasons to vote CON: "obviousness", along with "feasability" and "ridiculousness", are all specific to our own cultures and experiences. For the people living in America it's pretty ridiculous to believe that if you shoplift you'll get your hands cut off, but in the Middle East and other parts of the world, it's a whole different story on how believable those consequences would be.

On Debate.org we are almost free reign on what types of topics we can set up, and what positions we would want to take. We don't have a time limit to how long it takes to write the first round of the instigator's case, and it can take up to 8,000 characters. If Smarticles has had all that freedom and has REFUSED to use all that space she had after writing her R1 (she used only 214. That's 2.7% usage) for defining "obvious" things, if she CHOSE to NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, then it would be up to me to define the resolution/topic. And to me, it was quite obvious that women are not equal to men. When I see "equal" I think "math", and in math, "equal" means congruent and equivalent to.

Therefore, my thesis is that women are not the same as men.

She used the same type of argument in her R2 as I am right now, called "Debate Theory", so she can't say I'm not justified in using it, because then the impacts would apply directly back to her, and even more so because of my arguments above talking about the instigator's prep time for R1, so if she chooses to keep using theory on me, you look to the PRO's and CON's R1's only. In which case I win because my definitions are the definitions for the debate and her case directly bites into my arguments.

So, onto her own theory stuff.

"This destroys the entire purpose of fair debate and takes away all of the ground I have in this round to debate on. You, and my voters, need to look at the context of this round. Simply making the resolution mean anything you want it to defeats the entire point of debate."

This is wrong on a load of levels.

First of all, I believe that SHE'S the one being unfair on this topic: She gives this 42 character case and expects me to derive all her interpretations of the resolution/topic she wrote from it. I don't think so. If she's going to define anything in this debate, it better be FIRST ROUND because she'd be a SHIFTING ADVOCACY otherwise, and I have already explained why that is abusive.

But EVEN IF she didn't have a shifting advocacy and WASN'T abusive, EVEN IF you don't believe that: She didn't define anything in R1, and so it was up to me in my own R1 to specify what the resolution was talking about. Unlike her, I cited definitions from a specific source, and sure, there are 14 or more definitions (honestly I didn't count), but I picked the first definition on that list, so it should be most relevant. And even if it isn't, she didn't define anyways, so we have to look to my definition for the debate.

Thirdly, she speaks about "context", "fair debate", and "ground". I have individual responses to each of these.

"Context" - There is no context; when I look at the topic I see the words and I see a white background. As for the whole "it's obvious" thing, I've already responded to that. You didn't provide a definition in R1, so I provided one.

"Ground" - 1) All arguments take away ground. If I bring up evidence that shows that ethanol causes more petroleum use than just plain using gasoline, well then too freakin' bad! You can't use the argument that ethanol curbs global warming anymore.
2) It doesn't matter if I take away ground. You have an infinite amount of arguments to make, and this is even more clearly defined when we all realize that we're all on the internet. We have Google, Wikipedia, and all these other FREE sources where we can get information. Even if by my case I took away fifteen million arguments you could've made, you still have infinite arguments to make. Infinity minus big numbers still result in infinity. You'd have to prove that you have limited ground for this argument to matter at all.
3) If an argument I provided was able to make you resort to not responding at all and saying I'm "unfair", doesn't that mean I'm just winning the round because my arguments are too good for you?

"Fairness" - She's basically saying that my argument is unfair because it takes away too much of her ground, and that debate should be fair.

She never provides a reason why fairness matters, but EVEN THEN.

Debate isn't fair. I'm sorry that it was made this way.

The point of debate is to find truth. Whoever provides the "true arguments" wins the round. Now, she comes up here in R1 with the topic, "Woman are equal to men". Overlooking the spelling, she chose the topic. She chose the wording, and SHE CHOSE to not define in her first speech. Now, I come up here in my R1 and, because she didn't define, I defined the resolution/topic. I believe that women are not equal to men because they AREN'T equal: The TRUTH is on the CON side of this topic. I'm sorry if making it simple and easy to vote CON feels like you're going to lose this debate, but that's THE TRUTH.

Look, if the resolution was "The sky is blue", and the AFF/PRO just comes up here and says, "hey, the sky IS blue", the NEG/CON can't say that the AFF/PRO is being abusive because they have absolutely no ground to debate on. In formal debate, the AFF/PRO can say that they didn't choose the topic and it's not their fault that the truth is on their side, and that it's too bad that the truth is on their side: and thats what debate is for; finding the truth. But WHADDYA KNOW, ON DEBATE.ORG THE INSTIGATORS CHOOSE THEIR TOPICS.

She set herself up in a death trap by wording the topic that way and refusing to provide any definitions whatsoever in her R1.

Speaking of which, I don't know what an abusive argument is. One that takes away too much ground? Oh wait, but all arguments take away ground. So what IS an abusive argument????

Finally, she says "Simply making the resolution mean anything you want it to defeats the entire point of debate"

This is also wrong on multiple levels.

1) What's the point of debate? To find truth. I'm sorry the resolution agrees with me.
2) Isn't she just "making it anything" she wants it to be as well? Why does this apply to me at all? I'm not the one with a shifting advocacy.
3) It isn't what I want, it's THE TRUTH.

Because the CON has shown that voting CON is affirming the truth, you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Smarticles

Pro

Line by line.

"She's a shifting advocacy. I call abuse."

>>You attempt to tell me that my argument is completely and totally new? You skew the entire debate and then yell at me for attempting to stop me? My advocacy hasn't changed at all.

Round 1: Women are equal to men.

Round 2: Reject your interpretation, Women are equal to men.

My advocacy has stayed exactly the same in my first round, my second round, and then this round. I have been debating the entire time that women are equal to men.

And you proved my point when you said, "I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth."

So now to turn this back on you. You say i'm a shifting advocacy? Look at yourself.

Round 1: Women are not literally equal to men.

Round 2: Your a shifting advocacy!

I notice a small discrepancy.

If anyone is going to be losing on this argument it is you.

"First of all, I believe that SHE'S the one being unfair on this topic: She gives this 42 character case and expects me to derive all her interpretations of the resolution/topic she wrote from it. I don't think so. If she's going to define anything in this debate, it better be FIRST ROUND"

>>Oh really? Lets look at the context of my first round.

"Woman are equal to men. They just don't do the same things. Men are better than woman at some things, and woman are better than men at some things. I do not understand guys who think men are dominant. How can they?"

Where do you pull the idea that I was anywhere attempting to advocate that men are literally equal to women in this round? Look specifically to the phrase, "Men are better than woman at some things, and woman are better than men at some things" obviously if I think this then they can't be literally equal. Then look to my second to last sentence, "I do not understand guys who think men are dominant." Once again this shows the context of the debate. We are not talking about literally equal here. We are speaking of woman rights and abilities.

"But EVEN IF she didn't have a shifting advocacy and WASN'T abusive, EVEN IF you don't believe that: She didn't define anything in R1, and so it was up to me in my own R1 to specify what the resolution was talking about. Unlike her, I cited definitions from a specific source, and sure, there are 14 or more definitions (honestly I didn't count), but I picked the first definition on that list, so it should be most relevant. And even if it isn't, she didn't define anyways, so we have to look to my definition for the debate."

>>Ummm no, no we shouldn't. I didn't bother defining because I thought it was more than clear what I was talking about. You on the other hand attempted to twist what I was saying so you could win this debate because you didn't feel like debating my advocacy. You had every chance not to take this debate.

"but I picked the first definition on that list, so it should be most relevant."

>>Except for the fact that it wasn't.....

"And even if it isn't, she didn't define anyways, so we have to look to my definition for the debate."

>>No we definitely don't. You define a word that didn't need to be defined in the context. Then I turn around and re-define it for you with two definitions from the same source. We definitely don't need to look to your definition.

Onto your three responses to my abuse arguments.

""Context" - There is no context; when I look at the topic I see the words and I see a white background. As for the whole "it's obvious" thing, I've already responded to that. You didn't provide a definition in R1, so I provided one."

>>Already hit both points in this above. There was a context and it more than precedes your definition.

"Ground" - 1) All arguments take away ground. If I bring up evidence that shows that ethanol causes more petroleum use than just plain using gasoline, well then too freakin' bad! You can't use the argument that ethanol curbs global warming anymore.
2) It doesn't matter if I take away ground. You have an infinite amount of arguments to make, and this is even more clearly defined when we all realize that we're all on the internet. We have Google, Wikipedia, and all these other FREE sources where we can get information. Even if by my case I took away fifteen million arguments you could've made, you still have infinite arguments to make. Infinity minus big numbers still result in infinity. You'd have to prove that you have limited ground for this argument to matter at all.
3) If an argument I provided was able to make you resort to not responding at all and saying I'm "unfair", doesn't that mean I'm just winning the round because my arguments are too good for you?"

>>My ground is the resolution. Thats what I have to use against you in this debate. You simply have to disprove the resolution in some way or another. Except you don't bother trying to do that at all. Instead you attempt to change the resolution. So you take all of my ground (arguing for womans rights and abilities) and take it, under your definition these arguments are now pointless. And then you replace my ground with your new interpretation which would be to prove that men are literally equal to women. Except I can't prove that can I? So guess what.... I now have no ground. You have taken it all.

>> On your third point specifically. Where does that logic come from. I make a debate talking about women and men being equal within the context and you attempt to change the entire debate. Of course I'm arguing your being unfair you've attempted to steal every argument I could make. You are attempting to change the entire resolution. This would be like me arguing that cats are cooler than dogs and then you turning around and being like, "well cats is a Broadway production and it obviously isn't better than dogs." Like our current debate my example totally ignores the context and changes the definition of one of the words.

""Fairness" - She's basically saying that my argument is unfair because it takes away too much of her ground, and that debate should be fair."

>>Debate should be fair. The idea of debate is not to find truth as you stated it is to decide who the better debater is. If the point of debate was to find truth then debate would be pointless as one side would always be truthful and the other not. What you speak of is a poll. Polls will find truth or public opinion. Debate is about debating and deciding who the better debater is.

You then used the twisted logic that I made the resolution so I should not be complaining about losing ground but you have this backwards. I made the resolution so you should be content with the ground you have. Obviously you were not so you attempted to change the entire resolution. Once again, if you didn't want to debate this then you didn't have to.

"Finally, she says "Simply making the resolution mean anything you want it to defeats the entire point of debate"

This is also wrong on multiple levels.

1) What's the point of debate? To find truth. I'm sorry the resolution agrees with me.
2) Isn't she just "making it anything" she wants it to be as well? Why does this apply to me at all? I'm not the one with a shifting advocacy.
3) It isn't what I want, it's THE TRUTH."

>> 1). Wrong, it is to debate. Its an exercise in using the mind and intelligence.

2). I made the debate. If you wanted to argue something else make your own resolution. @.@ I have the right to make it what I want, you agreed to what I wanted my accepting the debate.

3). Its the truth if you want to ignore the context of everything. But once again i'm calling your logic regressive. We can't simply ignore the context of the debate. Ignoring the context makes debate meaningless. Would be like debating the resolution "fish". Without a context it has no meaning.

Thanks, my advocacy still stands.
Korezaan

Con

Main argument summarized here:

DairyGirl is basically saying throughout her entire R3 that I "twisted the resolution" to outside what it was originally meant for. What I'm going to be saying is that it doesn't matter what you intend the debate for, it's how you manifest that intent inside the debate round. Since DairyGirl refused to do that and chose to make both the topic AND her R1 ambiguous, giving NO interpretation, we have to look to my R1. Her last defense is "context", but then she doesn't give any warrants for that, so you vote CON.

Now, the line by line.

"My advocacy hasn't changed at all.Round 1: Women are equal to men. Round 2: Reject your interpretation, Women are equal to men."

---She agrees that she does not give an interpretation in her own R1, therefore I HAD to give an interpretation in my own R1, EXTEND ALL MY IMPACTS AND ARGUMENTS FROM R2.

"You say i'm a shifting advocacy? Look at yourself."

---NEG can do shifting advocacy any day, because all they have to do is prove the AFF wrong. Oh and by the way, the CON side of a topic doesn't "advocate" anything. Let's say the resolution comes in the form "X". The PRO's job is to say "X is true". Whatever the CON does, all they have to do is say "X is false": which can go from "X is not true" to "X does not exist". I'm saying that this topic is nonsensical because it's obvious that women are not congruent to men. Since you refused to provide definitions in R1 and you refuse to give your own interpretation in R1, we have to look to my own definitions. Sure, you may have never moved from your position in your own mind, but that's standpoint epistimology; we can't read your mind. As for "obviousness", extend all my impacts and arguments from R2.

"And you proved my point when you said, "I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth.""

---Actually, in R1 I said "If the topic was "Women should be treated the same way men are treated" I'll agree, because we're all human and we all have the same worth."

Emphasis on IF.

"I didn't bother defining because I thought it was more than clear what I was talking about."

---Well that's too bad. Cross-apply and again, extend my arguments on "obviousness".

"Except for the fact that it wasn't....."

---Again, "obviousness".

"No we definitely don't. You define a word that didn't need to be defined in the context. Then I turn around and re-define it for you with two definitions from the same source. We definitely don't need to look to your definition."

---As for "didn't need to be", again, cross-apply "obviousness". Your redefining bites directly into the shifting advocacy argument which only applies to the PRO. Your claim "we definitely don't need to look at your definition" is unwarranted, and false because my definitions are the only definitions for the round, as redefining after R1 screws up the entire debate.

"Already hit both points in this above. There was a context and it more than precedes your definition."

---Notice how she never tells me what the context is. I specifically say that there IS no context, and show to you why because all I see is black text and white background. As for definitions, she can't redefine in R2. I went over that already. Twice.

"My ground is the resolution. Thats what I have to use against you in this debate. You simply have to disprove the resolution in some way or another. Except you don't bother trying to do that at all. Instead you attempt to change the resolution. So you take all of my ground (arguing for womans rights and abilities) and take it, under your definition these arguments are now pointless. And then you replace my ground with your new interpretation which would be to prove that men are literally equal to women. Except I can't prove that can I? So guess what.... I now have no ground. You have taken it all."

---Actually, I don't change the resolution AT ALL. Your whole thing about woman's rights and abilities are NOT IN THE RESOLUTION, and NOT IN YOUR R1. I have clearly stated throughout my R2 and now, my R3, how she had all the time in the world to make it clear. Instead, she chose to use up 214 character spaces and 42 woords, and made the resolution five words, and specifically chose those. If she had all those options, and CHOSE TO NOT USE THEM, then it is up to me to redefine in R2.

EVEN IF THAT IS NOT TRUE, She NEVER PROVIDES A REASON WHY IT TAKES AWAY GROUND. She merely says "I can't prove that can I?" ONE: SHE NEVER SHOWS WHAT IS AN ABUSIVE ARGUMENT AND JUST CLAIMS THAT MINE IS. TWO: SHE'S JUST COMPLAININ AND MOANIN CAUSE SHE WANTED A FREE WIN AND ISN'T GETTING IT. THREE: ALL ARGUMENTS COME IN THE FORM OF X IS Y AND Y IS Z THEREFORE X IS Z. THE ONLY "ABUSIVE ARGUMENTS" WHICH AREN'T EVEN ARGUMENTS AT ALL, COME IN THE FORM OF "X IS X", WHICH ARE REFLEXIVE STATEMENTS. MY R1 AND CASE WAS NOT A REFLEXIVE STATEMENT. CLARIFICATION: EQUAL MEANS CONGRUENCY, RESOLUTION SAYS MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL, THEREFORE I NEGATE. SHE JUST HAS TO DESTROY ONE LINK, AND I'M SORRY IF SHE LACKS TRUE DEBATE SKILLS. AND EVEN IF ALL THAT'S NOT TRUE, her response doesn't take out my original arguments there, and therefore you already negate because ground doesn't matter.

"I make a debate talking about women and men being equal within the context and you attempt to change the entire debate."

---How the hell was i supposed to know this was about rights? The only thing I had to look at in R1 was "Woman are equal to men" (which I can already negate based off of not defining which woman and a kritik on woman being capitalized while men is plural and lowercase) and your case, which basically said something about different abilities and male dominance. Your assumption that I would "get it" is taken out by the "obviousness" arg I made in R2.

"Debate is about debating and deciding who the better debater is. "

---Which means I should win this round because I called abuse on a procedural violation (shifting advocacy) while you called abuse on a substantive violation. There's no real thing as a substantive violation at all, because all arguments can be taken out one way or another, since they're not reflexive statements. Your argument that "you can't do it" just proves that I'm too good for you and that I should win.

"Wrong, it is to debate. Its an exercise in using the mind and intelligence."

---STRAIGHT TURN: You vote for me because I had exercised both our minds well by giving clear arguments for her to respond to, and an interpretation in the resolution when she did not. You don't vote for her on an independent reason: She has poor spelling, made a 5 word resolution, and a 214 character / 42 word R1 with no interpretations and no definitions.

"I made the debate. If you wanted to argue something else make your own resolution. @.@ I have the right to make it what I want, you agreed to what I wanted my accepting the debate."

---Already responded to this: She refused to give her own interpretation on it and assume that we can all just figure out what the heck she's saying. If her R1 had defs and interps in it, sure. But this is an argument that doesn't apply.

"We can't simply ignore the context of the debate. Ignoring the context makes debate meaningless. Would be like debating the resolution "fish". Without a context it has no meaning."

---But she never provides a context ANYWHERE IN THE RESOLUTION, NOR in her R1, her R2, or R3. So where the hell am I supposed to look? I wouldn't want to "screw up" and "twist things" again now would I?

Since I impact better to her own standards of debate better than she does, and since I actually argue the resolution, you NEGATE.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Korezaan 6 years ago
Korezaan
I have been called worse things by better people. Naming yourself "the state" and continually telling me that I'm a virgin won't change the facts that 1) I have a better avatar than you, GAME OVER!, 2) No "nerves" were hit, I sort of explained that in my last comment, which was 3) I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend the possibility that a person can have a shifting moral basis due to their conception that debate is only an intellectual game.

Oh yeah, virginity has absolutely no impact.

Thanks for playing.
Posted by DoctaFunk 6 years ago
DoctaFunk
ROFL wow Kornee, hit a nerve, didn't I?! Relax child; regardless of how hard you posture to prove your point, it is still invalid, and you are still a virgin.

"I have a better avatar than you. Game Over."

LMAO and if there was any question whether you are indeed a virgin, that last statement demonstrates beyond any doubt that you have never been with a woman.

The state rests.
Posted by Korezaan 6 years ago
Korezaan
I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend the possibility that a person can have a shifting moral basis due to their conception that debate is only an intellectual game.

Oh yeah, I have a better avatar than you. GAME OVER!
Posted by DoctaFunk 6 years ago
DoctaFunk
Korezaan is clearly a virgin with a vendetta against women.

Painfully obvious. So sad.
Posted by jimmybush 6 years ago
jimmybush
No actual ground abuse proven, therefore you never vote on the procedural arguments. Since there's no clear rule about who has the burden of proof on debate.org, and you are both ships passing in the night, neither of you really win.
Posted by Ristaag 6 years ago
Ristaag
You both killed the debate.
Posted by Kleptin 6 years ago
Kleptin
I'm jealous. The second I saw this debate title, I knew I wanted to use Con's exact argument.

It's kind of like the debate I had on "Mike Huckabee is better than your candidate" and I argued that my candidate was also Mike Huckabee XD

Excellent job Con.
Pro, watch your wording XD
Posted by Korezaan 6 years ago
Korezaan
I called my opponent DairyGirl. That was another person I was debating recently; sorry for the misnaming x_____x

My bad ):
Posted by Korezaan 6 years ago
Korezaan
whoops, i said "are dominant" twice.
35 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by marin24 5 years ago
marin24
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 roycegee 6 years ago
roycegee
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 ronnyyip 6 years ago
ronnyyip
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 Theomega 6 years ago
Theomega
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 kelstwa 6 years ago
kelstwa
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 wooferalot101 6 years ago
wooferalot101
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 Jokerdude 6 years ago
Jokerdude
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 billboard 6 years ago
billboard
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 skiies23 6 years ago
skiies23
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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 Derek.Gunn 6 years ago
Derek.Gunn
SmarticlesKorezaanTied
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