The Instigator
Skar
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
burningpuppies101
Con (against)
Winning
72 Points

World Peace

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: 4/22/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,790 times Debate No: 7933
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (13)

 

Skar

Pro

Whom have not thought of a world, united under one Banner, where people seek only the future and technology, no need for violence, no need for any arms. But what is the cost of peace, War. How can we Achieve peace? Some will go against such peace and try to destroy it, should we annihialate all those whom stand against peace?, Should we just Smash through every single nation that doesnt wish to be united and to be in a Union?
I believe that in this world, in these momments right now we need peace more than anything, we need unity to be able to survive, we have: A worlwide Economic crisis, more than 32 wars going on in the world, A war every single decade making millions suffer, Wars for religious causes or for economic gain, Hunger, Disease, and inhuman genocide in some nations.
Now some say there shouldnt be unity, i say that a person who have not seen the horror of war, the horrors of this world, does not wish for unity, for they are selfish.
Call me whatever you wish, which will likely be "Scoialist" or maybe "communist", but cant we just all be in peace in a world as chaotic as this?
burningpuppies101

Con

I want to first thank my opponent and welcome his to his (what I think is his) first debate on debate.org *steps back and applauds opponent*

Quick note before I start: I haven't done a debate in this setting in a while, so forgive me if I seem off.

Now, to the debate. Here is the resolution as I see it: A Permanent and Lasting World Peace is possible in the present world. This is how I have interpreted my opponent's argument, and the subsequent comments.

So my opponent's burden is quite clear to me. He must prove, beyond any doubt, that a unifying, permanent, and lasting world peace is quite possible in the current world, and the current situation.

My burden is equally clear. I must show that such a Utopian ideal is not possible in the present world.

So, before the debate truly begins, I'm going to provide some definitions, since my opponent did not.
Here's a quick definition of World, provided by Merriam Webster: World: human society

Here is what I believe to be the most relevant definition of Peace, provided by Merriam Webster. This shall be the definition used throughout the debate. peace: a: a state or period of mutual concord between governments b: a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity

Here is what should be the definition of Possible, also provided by Merriam Webster. possible: being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization

Ok, so with definitions out of the way and 1500 characters used, I'm going to move on to my opponent's arguments. So, reading over my opponent's first speech once again, I see a few things:
1. He begins with a lot of questions, some rhetorical, some not so rhetorical.
2. He states a lot of facts regarding problems in the world around us, from the economy to religious wars.
3. He makes some pretty bold statements about why people would be crazy to not want peace.

Here is the problem with his opening arguments.
1. They aren't arguments. A basic argument has 3 things. A Claim, which my opponent has made many of. A Warrant, meaning a reason supporting your claim, or evidence showing why your claim is correct. And finally, an Impact of the Resolution. This last part asks of the argument: "Ok, so you've got a point. How does it affect anything? What does it do?"
2. My opponent makes some very nice claims about how peace is needed, and has a ton of facts to prove it. Here's the problem. He is just labeling the opposite of "peace." He labels the Economic crisis, all the wars, the suffering, hunger, disease, etc. However, this is just what is going on, and is just a statement of what he believes to be the opposite of peace. First off, eradicating disease will not create peace. Eradicating disease will only make people more healthy. It has not direct link to peace. Just thought I'd make that clear.
3. So, without any warrants, my opponent is making broad statements about the world, and why he wants peace in the world.
4. Therefore, I eagerly await my opponents actual argumentation.

So, with 5000 characters left, I'm going to prove why a world peace may be nice, but is not possible in the current world. I'll have my arguments in this format:
ARG 1:
C: Claim
W: Warrant
I: Impact

ARG 2:
C:
W:
I:
etc,

So here are the reasons as to why a world peace is not possible.
ARG 1:
C:The current political situation of the world will not allow it.
W: A necessary precedent of world peace is a cooperation of all 195 countries within it, or else it cannot be called world peace. If I can show that all 195 countries will not be able to cooperate together to form world peace, I have fulfilled my burden for the debate, and I win. Back to my original point. There are currently 195 countries in the world. That is 195 different political systems, and 195 different countries with different ideals. Like my opponent said, there are more than 32 wars in the world today, all started for some reason or another. My point is, each of those wars were started over a disagreement, and it is because of this disagreement that those 2 countries(sometimes more) went to war in the first place. How do you ask all 64+ countries involved in some conflict or another to just stop and work together? Here is an example. Look at India and Pakistan. Two countries, with nukes pointed at the other. They are separated by religious beliefs, and nothing will be able to change that. In order for my opponent to win this debate, he has to prove how to get India and Pakistan to work together as one unified partnership, along with all 193 countries. You cannot change someone's most basic beliefs, some of which include religion, as in the case of India and Pakistan. To quote some of the people on this site, that would be like asking GodSands or DACTMOTO to suddenly change their ideals and work with all the atheists on this site. Actually, it would be worse, since DACTMOTO is not fighting with the atheists. India and Pakistan actively show their hatred for each other. Here are some more examples: Iran and the US North Korea and the US and its allies Cuba and the US Shiites vs the Sunnis Iran vs Israel (I think) Extreme right wing and extreme left wing If my opponent wants to win, he has to prove how all the countries listed above would just stop fighting over their basic ideals and start working together.

I: Since I have shown that there is too much conflict in the world and too many people fighting other people, and too many countries with a deeply rooted hatred for the other country, I have shown that a worldwide lasting and permanent peace is not possible.

ARG 2: (running out of characters, so i'm sorry if I'm brief)
C: World Peace is so ambiguous that it is impossible to obtain.
W: Even though the definition of peace is:a: a state or period of mutual concord between governments b: a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, it is not possible to attain this because with 195 countries in the world, that equates to 195 different opinions on what is world peace. By mutual concord, does that mean a higher government of the world? Does that mean a communistic society? Does that mean disbanding government altogether? There are so many different possibilities, and each country will have their own idea. How do you choose? How do you change someone's basic beliefs about society? Time and time again throughout history, the answer has been to fight. And that equates to more war. And the opposite of world peace. The second part of the definition is to agree to end hostilities. How do you ask India and Pakistan to stop their hostilities towards each other? Do you tell them to disband their weapons? How do you ask two countries with deeply rooted beliefs against each other to all of a sudden throw down the towel? My opponent might argue that a stronger country should do it, but how do you choose which country? What guarantee is there that this "stronger country" will be able to create peace between these nations? Does it choose sides? Any country forced to make peace between these two groups would be forced to choose sides, due to each countries political agenda. Therefore, it is not possible. You can apply this to all the groups I listed earlier.
I: I've shown why a permanent, lasting world peace isn't possible, so I have won.

I'm running out of characters, so I leave my opponent with this: If he wants to win this debate, he will have to answer all the above arguments, prove the opposite of them, and show how he can solve all the conflict in the world. He has to provide a way to induce peace between all the groups I listed, and even then, he still has to prove why a permanent world peace is very possible in the current world.
I'm going to save the below arguments for later, and I will bring it up later in the debate. I just have it there as a note to myself.
C: Utopia.
C: Possi
Debate Round No. 1
Skar

Pro

I must apologize for my foolish entr´┐Że, I didn't become very expecific with the Issue I was making, alright time to rephrase this and I hope my opponent will be there for my future debates.

Alright time to start off the right way.

Alright, I believe that world peace can last no matter on whom say nay to my claim. First off there have been many ways that peace have lasted now, the kind of peace that I believe can last is the kind of peace claimed by the philosopher Aristotle is the kind of true peace there should be he said, "We make war so that we may live in peace", so in other words as the Greeks and Romans did to make peace upon their lands we must make war to make peace, we must destroy to preserve this peace. Such as it's been done before, unification through the fires of war, even though we all know this is the most destructive path, it's sometimes the best path. I believe that in this world all the considered 195 countries in the UN and 245 considered in the world, must unite or all to unite, to make this peace last. We must as a people consider that this world has been ruled by humans for only a few thousand years, and how much have we ruined this world already, we must unite, we must consider that even if war may not be the best choice it is the best unification.

So to support my claims have we not seen history, have we not seen how countries have become unified through war, even though this destructive path may have been painful, it would have been like being stricken by the thorns of a rose before finally obtaining it's blossom. Many have read history how the ancient such as the Romans and Greeks, unified their countries by the fires of war, they knew that the only way to be unified was through war, since words often settled nothing but days or maybe weeks of peace. Not often do you hear of an unification without war, unless it's a political party that is downfallen and just joins thee rest. Now the romans even before they became a great empire, they were rulled by kings, the kings were harsh horrible and oppressed the people, Latium at the time was divided, so the Julii and the Brutii families drove out the kings, and made peace that was soon threaten by the remnants of the greeks in what is now Sicily, and the many barbaric tribes on the northen lands, and well even though Romans may not be the best example to all, they were very wise to do so.

Also, one reason there is so many wars is for the Private Weapon companies to make billions, as if they havent already in the Iraq war, combined with older conflicts. Those companies have a big influence on war so they need it to profit, which enrages me and would enrage many to know that such people are responsible for some current conflicts and some assasinations of very important people. Just thought I might say this, even though it may not be relevant.

To find peace for the 2 countries my opponent has presented, would be just a nightmare of nuclear war, but what if a third party interfered, maybe then peace would last, by whatever means the people should not suffer for the foolish choices of those whom run the goverment for they dont suffer they just watch as the people cry for peace. So I say get rid of both of the goverments by introducing a third party menber, that would mean to either assasinate, or get rid of those who are rulling the country by revolution, yes the methods maybe hard, but what do you do with the weeds on a garden, too often do those weeds grow to big and make the beautiful flowers suffer, so is this true in life. Yes the methods maybe radical, maybe a bit insane, but well if a mad man were running your goverment and you had no other choice but to get rid of the said ruller, revolution is another path. I will probably hear from many this and that about me being a big crazy, but you know whatever, many of those rullers you know yourself aren't very good at all, if they do not care for the people and prefer to be pointing weapons at each other not considering they are humans beings, then it makes you think that maybe they aren't as great.

My point being, that through War we shall unite this world, we shall be at peace and we shall be more to the future than ever. What we can achieve with such a world, is beyond our hearts content. What we can do with such peace is for us to choose. But none the less, We must create peace.
burningpuppies101

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for the prompt response, and I aoplogize in advance if this reply is a little late.

Now, to begin. To start with, my opponent has not answered my arguments in any way that could negate them.

ARG1:
My opponent does nothing to refute my warrants for this argument, so we can assume that they stand. He only says that it is necessary that there be world peace, but offers no argument against mine. So this can be extended.

Also, note to my opponent: When you refute my points, do me a favor and quote my arguments. I'll do the same. It just streamlines everything.

ARG 2:
My opponent also does not comment at all on this argument, not even making mention of it throughout his entire speech. So we can assume it still stands, and so this argument wins.

So, at this point in the debate, my opponent has offered no rebuttal to my arguments. In addition, as I will show later, he offers no warrant for his arguments. Therefore, at this point in the debate, I am currently winning this debate by a landslide. Also, I would like to point out that I can win off of any of these arguments. I can lose ARGS 1 and 2, but I can win off of ARG 3.

And since I can, I'm going to add 1 more argument, in the same format as before.

ARG 3:
C: Such a utopian ideal that my opponent advocates is not possible by definitions.
W: The world my opponent suggests can be described by one word: Utopia. He wants there to be world peace, everyone to stop fighting, and everything to be right in the world. Here's why it doesn't work.
definition of utopia: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place.

Imaginary and indefinitely remote. In orther words, not possible by definition. Thank you.

I: I've proven my burden, and I win.

Now, I'm going to move onto my opponent's case.

Ok, but this entire first paragraph has no warrant. He is just stating a necessary precedent to world peace. And even then, his precedent is not possible attain. Cross apply args 1 and 3.


That's actually not true. The Romans just took over the Greeks. They didn't work together. But to your argument. You try to pull out history, and how throughout history, peace has been made. here's what do you didn't consider:

1. The Roman empire is considerably smaller than the world. There are so many more variables to consider, which my opponent just brushes aside.
2. The Roman empire did not have the problem of religion. I'd like my opponent to prove how to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to work together. How do you plan to have India and Pakistan work together?

So, my opponent still has no argument at this point.

You're right, this is not relevant.


My opponent is trying to show how to resolve the conflict between India and Pakistan, but he is failing. He wants another third party country to just move in and take over both of them, and he thinks that this will solve the problem.

Here's why that's not true.
1. The conflict is not a political question as much as it is a religious one. Their conflict is at the very core of their beliefs, and for that reason, we can't stop them.
2. Which third country do you suggest? The US? We're on India's side. The UK? Same. China? USA would object. Russia? They're on Pakistan's side. Who do you think?
3. You suggest a revolution. But again, the conflict is not political. It is religious. It is like the current conflict between the atheists of the site and DACTMOTO and GodSands. You can't change DACT's beliefs, nor will you change Kleptin's.
4. You still offer no warrant as to why that will happen. And even if you can justify this third party, I can justify the US nuking both India and Pakistan. If you can justify something in the future, so can I.

5. Also, you have to answer all the other groups too.
Iran and the US
North Korea and the US and its allies
Cuba and the US
Shiites vs the Sunnis
Iran vs Israel (I think)
Extreme right wing and extreme left wing

Unless my opponent is able to prove how to solve the fundamental conflicts between all the groups listed above, my opponent loses.


That's great. You want to instigate a huge world war III and unify everyone through one government, and that will create world peace? Also, you fail to provide a warrant as to how we are going to get world peace. You only say that a huge world war will generate peace, but here's why you are wrong in the argumentation:

1. History has shown us otherwise. We've seen 2 World Wars, each one incredibly bloody, and we have no world peace. So immediately, we can see that another world war won't solve anything. If you can show otherwise, then I'll back down. But until then, you have lost the argument.

2. You provide no warrant as to how another world war will bring world peace. There's the problem of historical facts, and there is also the problem of you trying to fiat something, something that should not, and cannot be fiated. If you can fiat a world war generating world peace, I can fiat a world war destroying the earth. FYI, a fiat is just a form of argumentation (if it can be called that) where you justify something for the sake of the argument, but there is no real justification. A fiat would be like, There are unicorns in the world, and for that reason we have to stop deforestation. I haven't proven unicorns to exist, but for the sake of the argument, we can accept it. Maybe. In this case, a world war cannot be fiated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, we've reached the end of my opponents argumentation, and I have 1800 characters left. I'm going to lay out the ground that this debate has to be fought on.

Like I said earlier, the burdens in this round are incredibly clear. My opponent has to prove that world peace is possible in today's world, and I have to prove the opposite.

My opponent has written two incredibly well written speeches, and I applaud him for that, but he lacks one important part of his argumentation. My opponent forgets the last 2 parts of an argument, out of the three that I stated in my first speech. To recap:

There is a Claim, where you state what you want to prove. My opponent has made a great many of these, and his claims are very well written. However, his entire speech is claim, claim, claim, and none of the next two things.
My opponent lacks a Warrant for every single argument he makes. A warrant is a justification. For instance: I Claim that Global Warming Exists, and therefore, we have to cut back on car emission. I Warrant my claim with evidence from the scientific community that GW exists, and that Car Emissions is a part of it.

My opponent also lacks an Impact, which should lead off of his Warrant. An Impact is showing why your warrant for your claim, links back to the resolution. SO to use the previous example: The impact of reducing car emissions is that we stop global warming, and since I have proven that global warming exists with my evidence, I have shown why we must reduce car emissions (if the resolution was: We should reduce car emissions)

So, because all my arguments have a clearly stated Claim, Warrant, and Impact, and because none of those arguments were even touched on by my opponent, we can accept them for the round, and therefore I have won this debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Skar

Pro

Well you win, but i have to say a few things before.

-And I quote"That's actually not true. The Romans just took over the Greeks. They didn't work together."

You made an error, i meant the 2 countries made war within themselves to make peace. I know that after Alexander, the greeks were weak and all, romans conquered them not in the pace i said but you know what i mean. I did not mean at any point that they were working together, that would be like seeing a cat and a dog getting along, i know some have but you know my meaning.

They actually had a big problem after Christ, because there were Christians, and many other religions, so eventually the roman emperor Constantine decided to make all of Roman land christian because he prayed to god and won a big battle.

-I quote "1. The conflict is not a political question as much as it is a religious one. Their conflict is at the very core of their beliefs, and for that reason, we can't stop them."

Well the battle maybe over religious believes, but there is something called the separation of church and state, making it impossible for radicals to rule a country.

-I quote "3. You suggest a revolution. But again, the conflict is not political. It is religious."

Yes but if missiles are being aimed at the other countries, and the government does not take care of the situation because of their incapacity to act, then there is no other choice to remove the said government.

- I quote "Also, you have to answer all the other groups too."

Well you asked me to answer to those 2, not to the rest, I can probably answer to those others as well.

- I quote "You provide no warrant as to how another world war will bring world peace."

Well I thought providing legit historical facts was good.

- I quote "FYI, a fiat is just a form of argumentation (if it can be called that) where you justify something for the sake of the argument, but there is no real justification. A fiat would be like, There are unicorns in the world, and for that reason we have to stop deforestation. I haven't proven unicorns to exist, but for the sake of the argument, we can accept it. Maybe. In this case, a world war cannot be fiated."

Yes i know what a flat, is but how else can I present world peace.

- I quote "1. History has shown us otherwise. We've seen 2 World Wars, each one incredibly bloody, and we have no world peace. So immediately, we can see that another world war won't solve anything."

Well those wars, weren't exactly about world peace, though. One mostly about showing who's stronger . and the other one about a little man making a country big in little time, but having very little to think about how big the world is compared to him, he did though try to take over the world, and took over Europe, though. He lost because some country had to attack pearl harbor and get the Americans involved.

-I quote "
That's great. You want to instigate a huge world war III and unify everyone through one government, and that will create world peace? Also, you fail to provide a warrant as to how we are going to get world peace."

Well, umm yeah practically, yup. More like, eh well, I want it to be that any country that opposed this peace would be crushed, yes yes, fascism, but as long as the masses are happy would it matter to them, not really.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

And well that's about it, thank you again, I'm very new to this though, never really knew a argument would go this way. I hope i can learn alot more from you friend, thanks.

Sincerely Skar.
burningpuppies101

Con

I want to take this moment to sincerely thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. It was a great discussion, and I look forward to more in the future.

I'm just going to go over some issues that may be problematic for the debate.


Thank you *applauds opponent for a well fought battle*

< made an error, i meant the 2 countries made war within themselves to make peace. >
Ok, so it was a misinterpretation on my part.


Separation of church and state is pretty much a belief held by the US only, I believe. In any case, separation of church and state does not apply to India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan have a fundamental conflict between them. Just like the Shiites and the Sunnis, except in this case there are two countries armed with nukes.


Yet it is the entire country that hates the other country. The government of India would love to nuke Pakistan, and vice versa. But this opinion is not one that the citizens are against.


If you read carefully, you'll notice that I said for you to win, you had to answer with a solution for all of them.


The facts were against you. WWI and WWII did not bring world peace. You offer no reasoning as to how a WWIII would bring world peace, when WWI and WWII did not.


Ok, glad you knew what a fiat is, because I think I butchered the explanation. You could have presented world peace with a unique solution as to how to attain it, and defend it. Just make sure it is plausible, and make it plausible by backing it up with either cards or with very well thought out reasoning.


It doesn't matter. Who would go to war to try to attain something that is very unlikely, and even if we were unified under one government, do you think it would last? Also, you didn't warrant how a war to attain peace (which by itself is more or less not going to happen) would actually attain peace.


Who would be that one country? Do we need to go back to the Cold War? Two huge factions who were this close *puts fingers very close together* to shooting nukes at each other? How do you appease the masses when you had to conquer 95% of it, and 50% of what you conquered does not like you?

No, thank you. You're new, and you still have a bunch to learn. When I started on the site, my first debate was even worse than this one... I wrote horrible speeches with a horrible resolution that I wrote, and I essentially had to concede by the second round... *shudders at the memory* But anyways, just be ready for anything next time (which is like saying to an army recruit, be ready for anything, since anything can happen. No help :D)

I sincerely hope that we may meet again.

Thank you
*applauds opponent*
Debate Round No. 3
Skar

Pro

Ah damnation, me too, well eh, hmmm. good stuff you said, pretty good man.

And I didnt know so much about those countries, hey maybe we can discuss those other countries aswell some other time man.

Congratulations =).
burningpuppies101

Con

Well... Um... I kinda covered everything last speech.

But once again, I want to thank my opponent for such a great debate, and I hope we have mroe in the future.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dmarais 7 years ago
dmarais
sounds like pro is for a dictator who rules the whole world and kills whoever disagrees with him... that isn't exactly the kind of world peace we need. the best way to world peace (which is also unattainable) is through world wide cooperation to let everyone's countries live in peace within themselves. too bad most wars today are civil wars where people can't even live in peace with their own next door neighbor.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Why does PRO have points? He conceded.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
True that
Posted by McBain 8 years ago
McBain
Burningpuppies is the best name for a CON proponent ever!
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
HIYO! Another Fire Emblem here. :D
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Nice FE picture Skar :)
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
I like our third round speeches. I completely forgot it was 4 rounds, and I wrote my 3rd speech as though it was last..... oops
Posted by Skar 8 years ago
Skar
Yup we sure can achieve world peace if we set ourselfs to, it's not hard, the gathering of many is like the gathering of the few, just needs organization.
Posted by Skar 8 years ago
Skar
Oh sorry, haha, seems like i left that a little few words, out, well the solution is to try and uphold peace, such as the way that it was made lets say in ancient china as an example, was divided and well to make peace all of the other lands were conquered, it may have cost many but the ideal was to have a united nation, without war. that is an example I'm not saying I want that, there is also the way that many have tried to do, by talking and gathering, hopefully trying to gain peace.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Seems pretty sure the resolution is "We should achieve peace and YES WE CAN."
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dmarais 7 years ago
dmarais
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by turdfu13 7 years ago
turdfu13
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
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 sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
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 Conor 8 years ago
Conor
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Mdal 8 years ago
Mdal
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
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 Skar 8 years ago
Skar
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
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 crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
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 Marine1 8 years ago
Marine1
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
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 Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
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 philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
Skarburningpuppies101Tied
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