The Instigator
numa
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
bthr004
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

catholic principles: democrat or republican?

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: 7/30/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,632 times Debate No: 4840
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (11)

 

numa

Pro

** introduction/disclaimer **

if the catholic church absolutely had to side with a political party (democrat or republican), which one do you think it should choose, not based on scripture, but based on the religion's VALUES? i acknowledge that you can't have one without the other. the holy bible is where we read, learn and how we pass on catholic beliefs. however for the purpose of this debate, i ask that my opponent (who will argue on behalf of republicans, even if he/she is not republican) please not say "god does not believe in gay marriage, because corinthians 6:9 speaks against it" or something similar. rather i intend for this debate to be more about the discussion of ideals and values and morality regarding catholic teachings in general more than about quotes from the bible. of course biblical reference is necessary, however, i am asking more for a general interpretation of values than specific quotes for or against. i hope whomever becomes my opponent understands my request and respects the terms of this debate. i also ask that this be argued from a religious perspective, not political. and please keep in mind that the views expressed in this debate are not necesarily my own, but are just here for the sake of argument! with that, let's begin. i am PRO - democrat.

** abortion **

the right to life is something very sacred according to the catholic faith, therefore one might assume that the church should strongly oppose abortion. i disagree on the basis of several factors. one, a fetus does not yet have a life of its own, not according to christian doctrine such as the catechism, but rather in the sense that it is still inside of the mother's womb. it does not live and breathe on it's own, therefore, for the pupose of this debate, the fetus is not "alive" even if it is living. if something is not alive, you cannot kill it. you can prevent it's chance at life, but since when is not producing life always wrong? neither nuns nor priests should marry/reproduce according to the church, so clearly it is not inherently wrong to not prevent life from occuring. rather the catholic ideal is to not take a life that has already been started (born). for this reason, i do not think that the church should oppose abortion. another reason is the fact that god wishes for children to enter into a loving family. in most cases, a woman who chooses to have an abortion is not in a position where she can raise the child the way that god would like her to.

** the death penalty **

the bibles does say an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but the bible also preaches about love, forgiveness, compassion and pity. these are virtues one should pray for. without forgiveness, one lives with hate in their hearts and does not follow on the path of christ. to support the killing of a human being, even if they have killed another, goes against god's principles of taking lives and being the bigger and better person through forgiveness and love.

** war **

god cherishes life. an unjust war (deemed unjust by catholic doctrine and pope john paul 2) is expensive and ends lives, destroys communities, etc. god would oppose the war in iraq and favor a democratic plan of peace. only in necessary situations is war acceptable, and the church outlines what is deemed necessary in the "just war doctrine" for which the war in iraq does not fall.

** gay marriage/adoption **

god's message is love: love thy neighbor, love thy self. since homosexuality has been linked to genetics and deemed incontrollable, to love thy self is to be true to thy self. if one is homosexual, they should be true to the person god created them to be, and lead good and moral lives regardless of society's expectations. to not accept loving homosexual relationships is to be prejudice and unfairly biased against your neighbor; your brothers and sisters. it is not an act of love but an act of hate. we should welcome the opportunity for people to love whomever they want as they please so long as it is in accordance with god's principles of morality. nevermind the scripture that denounces such behavior; keep in mind that the bible was written at a time when such actions were deemed deplorable. that has a lot to do with history and culture, not god and his message of love and acceptance.

** the economy **

a major reason why god would want his followers to be democrats is because of social programs like welfare, medicare and social security. throughout the bible jesus has provided much aid to the poor, and people have been able to perform miracles that assist in feeding the masses. god, through scripture, acknowledges that often people are poor at no fault of their own, and we should have mercy on these individuals by being selfless with our blessings. everything we have is a gift from god; without him, it would not be possible. therefore our bounty is actually god's bounty, and it is our duty to share the blessings god has given us. nevermind the rich complaining about high taxation; they should feel fortunate for what god has given them the ability to earn and feel proud to give back to the community/country in which they live.

** environmental protection **

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we can't eat money." in other words, there are more important things in this world than monetary gain. mother nature is of utmost importance to the survival of the human race. additionally, history shows us through cultures such as the native americans that it is possible to live peacfully and happily in a society that places a higher worth on mother nature than it does on monetary wealth. democrats take more drastic measures to ensure the protection of the environment than republicans, who focus more on business endeavors than what is good for the earth.

** right to bear arms **

knowing the devil's influence, i don't think god would want his people to own guns because of the damage they have the potential of doing for several reasons. if they were necessary for protection, either from others or the government, it would be okay. but the cardinal virtue of prudence teaches us that we have to judge what actions are appropriate at different times in different situations. right now the united states is not in a position where citizens require guns for protection. if that man-made right were to be taken away and disasterous results ensued, only then should we fight back with ownership of killing mechanisms.

** religion and the public **

because god teaches us to love and accept our neighbors, this does not exclude those of a different faith. we should respect other religious ideologies by not forcing christian prayer, art, symbolism, etc either in school or other public places. rather we should try to learn about and embrace our cultural and spiritual differences with others.

** conclusion **

i will let my opponent take the floor for now. i'd like to remind everyone that this is just a debate for insight and fun, and do not accurately represent all of my true beliefs. but i do believe there is some truth to all of my arguments. i hope this debate inspires thoughtful discussion. i look forward to reading what my (hopefully) intelligent, respectful and open-minded opponent has to say. please try to keep this debate more about exchanging ideas rather than "proving or disproving the resolution." thank you.
bthr004

Con

I fail to understand my opponents platform. If we are in a discussion or a debate,.. either is fine, however, my opponent chose to be against apparently "CATHOLIC" principles being similar to that of democrats and/or republicans.

First off,.. why Catholic? Why not Methodist, or Baptist, etc.? Its seems to me your "target" is of christian values relating to political party values, rather than the specific values of the catholic faith.

None the less, I will handle your claims, one point at time, in the order you made them.

Abortion

- Most christian groups, and including Catholics, believe life truly believes after conception not after birth. Catholics, for instance, do not believe in birth control and the various contraceptives that PREVENT birth. It is of course expecting of christians to be married, and concieve with a life long husband. As for preists and nuns, it is simply a rule they do not have sex. The idea is that they will maintain absolute devotion to serving God, rather than a significant other and/or child. As far as abortion goes in general, hey, the child did not ask for your permission to be there, god put the child there, and one is sinning by removing it, taking the life, or chance at life away. That is the belief of christians.

The death penalty

- I am a christian and am in fact against the death penalty. However, (since I am not "allowed" to provide passages from the bible that disprove you theory of "contradicting views," I will not be able to specifically prove my points. I hope the judges take note at my opponents request to not use bible passages. None the less, the bible in several books, discuss the importance of ridding sinners by from our lives, if they are unable to be saved, and are of the devil, than we must kill them. If one murders another, it is eye for and eye.

War

- Here is the first place my opponent "hints" at their platform, offering that catholic beliefs fall more into line with democrats,.. If this is my opponents, stance, than it is certainly a FAR stretch, giving the track record of the democrats. The war in Iraq was voted in favor for bipartisan, the democrats supported it just as the republicans did. I gues now that public opinion has changed, so must the democrats swinging style of politics, the kind that get them into office with inflated promises that never get filled once in office. As I said before, if this is my opponents view, than remember, the democrats voted right along side the republicans to send us into IRAQ.

Gay

- Again more then several passages in the bible clearly outline the Homosexuality is a whicked sin. No actual proof but rather theories link homosexuality to anything other than personal choice. Certainly it contradicts most gay rights advocates, particularly the arguements that raising a child (own or adopted) in a gay couple home, would NOT increase chances of the child bieng homosexual. The basic foundation of genetic principles and heritability disprove the likeliness of homosexuality bieng a genetic marker that can be inherited through family genetics. God destroyed an entire city that was rampant with homosexual behavior in the story of Saddam and Gomorah. The bible is believed to be the word of god, and again, the bible tells of several instances of god specifically telling of the sins that is homosexual behavior. Any of those that believe otherwise, is believed to be harboring sins or sinners, as the bible states.

The economy

- Again, evidently my opponent takes a long stretch trying to prove that God would choose to be a democrat rather than a republican. Give a man a fish, you feed them for a meal, teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. That is a principle belief of the bible, and would counter the beleif that if we provide monetary aid rather then strict lines of self accountabilty and teachings, which is strong belief of Democrats.

The enviornment

- Big stab in the dark here by my opponent. Name ONE congressionaly passed law that went to protect enviornment pushed by democrats. Again all talk no action. However, this stereotype that republicans are nature haters is ridiculous, National soil and water conservation commission was developed and headed by republicans. Numerous other republican backed policies particularily agriculture policies, have FAR surpassed anything the democrats have put forth, again all talk no action (or proof offered by my opponent backing their claim.)

Guns

- Hmm.. democrats. As in the political party or just liberals in general? Pretty sure every democrat politician I can remember has never hesitated for a photo op slinging a rifle over their shoulder walking through a pheasant field. Get real. Guns,.. people can and have killed with out guns. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. The bible is against killing, not guns. By my opponent logic, we would have to get rid of cars, knives, toxic chemicals, blunt objects that could easily be swung into a head, hmm,.. any other ways one may be able to kill another.

Religion and Public

- The bible teaches us to spread the word of god. The word of god is above all and son Jesus Christ IS the savior of ALL man. Those that do not except him will not find eternal life in heaven. Choose to except that or not, but the bible clearly defines all of my points. THESE points are the teachings of GOD and the BACKBONE of the christian faith.

Conclusion

- My personal stance on this issue, is simple, God would choose neither dems. or rep. God is above all. True believers and followers understand this. The seperation of church and state is an outstanding part of this country.
Debate Round No. 1
numa

Pro

numa forfeited this round.
bthr004

Con

As my opponent failed to argue a second round,.. I will ask the judges to allow me to extend my first round points,..

Hopefully my opponent will provide new points in the following round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
numa

Pro

to clear the air: i chose to debate about catholicism specifically because i am catholic and am most familiar with their beliefs.

** abortion **

my opponent's first claim is that christians believe that life starts at conception, not birth. i acknowledge this to be true. however my point here was that you can still adhere to the christian philosophy of valuing life, while disagreeing that life starts at conception. to me, faith is subjective. i don't take the word of men from thousands of years ago and follow it to a T, and neither do most catholics (though they like to pretend they do). for instance, the bible bashes wearing cotton/polyester blends, yet most of us do. well if we're not going to adhere to that word, then why adhere to the bible verses against homosexual conduct? to me, you can't pick and choose which bible verses conveniently apply to your life and which ones don't. rather to me faith is about applying chrisitian (in this debate) philosophies to our lives through our own interpretation, which we should think about and research through prayer and education. that said, i disagree that life begins at conception, however, I STILL VALUE LIFE ABOVE ALL ELSE. i have a different opinion about when life begins, but it doesn't mean i don't value catholic teachings.

** the death penalty **

while the bible may talk about ridding sinners from our lives, it also talks about peace, compassion, forgiveness, pity, etc. it is hypocritical to say that life is of utmost importance and it's wrong to abort a fetus, yet have it be okay to end an already lived life. especially because the bible ALSO preaches about how only god can truly judge a person. we have no right to end the life of another human being. period. and if you don't agree, fine. but this isn't about your beliefs - it's about catholic PRINCIPLES (not necesarily teachings or bible verses. that's my point.)

** war **

while the dems may have voted alongside the repubs to send the US to war with iraq, their platform has indeed changed. con makes it seem like people are not allowed to make mistakes. but we do. we're human. and god understands that. he doesn't say "well you're to blame for this..." but instead welcomes the opportunity to repent and change the err of your ways. also, the dems voting to go to war with iraq has nothing to do with my POINT here. it's just a specific example on con's part, but doesn't address my issue.

** homosexuality **

again my opponent is using bible discouragement of the issue rather than catholic principles, which goes against the point of this discussion/debate. like i said, it would be EASY to find bible passages outlining god's "hatred" for homosexuals however i've also pointed out why the bible is not a reliable source: it was written thousands of years ago by biased men at a time when certain things were just deemed outlandish. given the structure of human nature (male + female = baby) it is easy to see why such a thing would seem deplorable to people of the time. however if catholics value love, acceptance and good will towards our neighbors, despite their differences, accepting homosexuality is the way to go. nobody's saying you have to adopt this lifestyle and it certainly is not getting in the way of continuing our species (the population is at an all time high right now) so to say it endangers anything is just ignorant. also, to say it endangers the "family unit" is also BS because a loving family is not destroying anything regardless of if it is made up of 2 females 2 males or 1 male and 1 female. i think you get my point.

** the economy **

"Give a man a fish, you feed them for a meal, teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. That is a principle belief of the bible" that very may well be so but that is not what we are talking about. i noticed that con did not address my point of- god, through scripture, acknowledges that often people are poor at no fault of their own, and we should have mercy on these individuals by being selfless with our blessings. everything we have is a gift from god; without him, it would not be possible. << all of this is also mentioned in the bible, and charity is BY FAR a huge aspect of catholic teaching. yet con did not refute it, so this point should go to me...

** the environment **

my point here was that democrats typically feel that the govt should put environmental concern ahead of economic policies, whereas repubs tend to disagree. again this debate is THEORETICAL, not based on specific citations fro the bible or anywhere else. this debate is about specific principles.

** guns **

i agree that people kill people. my opponent makes an excellent point here and i will concede this point to him. however i believe that dems would go to higher measures to protect the taking of lives, i.e. trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands, and avoiding the death penalty, etc.

** religion in the public **

"The word of god is above all and son Jesus Christ IS the savior of ALL man. Those that do not except him will not find eternal life in heaven." i completely disagree with this!!! catholics are taught to be TOLERANT and respectful of other points of view- not denounce them on the basis of OUR faith. also, it makes complete illogical sense that if you don't believe in god, you won't go to heaven... because what about all of those people who were brought into islamic homes, jewish homes, buddhist homes, etc? it is not their fault that they are non-believers or do not know the word of god. and god would never punish them for ignorance they could not control. to say otherwise is completely un-catholic. this point definitely goes to me.

** conclusion **

i find it abusive that my opponent concluded his portion with "God would choose neither dems. or rep. God is above all. True believers and followers understand this." i agree with this statement as well and never said otherwise. in fact, this was a goody goody attempt by my opponent to really stick it to me by highlighting god's infinite wisdom and omnipresence over everyone and everything. good for him. i agree with it.

i know that i will lose this debate, and most likely rightfully so. i missed a round and my grammar is less than perfect. i also know how my point of view is highly disagreed upon by most members of this site. that's fine. however my point with this debate was to highlight various beliefs by political parties and weigh them against christian principles, since most people are in fact christian (especially politicians). i specificed catholicism because i am catholic and that is my forte, so to speak.

but really what i was trying to do was take a look at what we've all been taught about keeping god/love in society instead of hurting those in the name of god, or through outdated and altered bible entries. we all know that people of the church have been corrupt since its inception. so this discussion was about revealing christian principles without tainting them and applying them to society. i don't care about losing because i'm glad i got to express my opinions here in this form. thanks!
bthr004

Con

I will try to keep this round brief,..

To my opponent,..

I am also Catholic, you have completely shaped your own beliefs and squeezed them into the disguise of Catholiscism,.. I will adress your points and provide by laws that prove you are wrong according to Catholic principles as goverened by the Vatican.

In general,.. YES it is wrong to be another religion aside from christianity... (if you are a follower of the faith.) It is hard to consider I know,.. I have friends that are not christian,.. AND it is of my religion's belief that they aboslutely can not obtain eternal life unless they except Christ as their only savior, the son of god. This means, that if they do not believe and follow christianity,.. they will go to hell. Harsh but true according to,..... Guess what!!??? The Vatican!!

Do not forget the history of Catholiscism,.. crusadors rode around the world spreading christianity,.. even going to war, and killing those that did not change their beliefs to christianity!!

Right? Wrong? People these days adhere to what they want to believe,.. less and less god fearing people, that would rather "tweek" the word of god into something that makes them feel better,.. The church has taught the truth,.. the word of god is blessed and true!

On to the debate,... My opponents arguements, my rebuttle.

** abortion **

My opponent provides no evidence backing these claims,.. however, does concede that christians believe that life begins at conception. This proves my opponent wrong. In the context of this debate,.. the pro life advocates would side with most christian beliefs,.. especially catholic. (Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; and that the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful.) << Principles of morality quoted from the affirmation of SAINT LOUIS.

www.angilicancatholic.net

** the death penalty **

Nothing here was unrefuted with facts. Nothing ties Catholic belief with democrat or republican views,.. (I also am against the death penalty, I am catholic and a republican,.. proof enough.)

** war **

My only point here was that although unjust war is against religous view (catholic),.. It can not be linked to either political party as the war was equally "justified" by both at the time of the invasion. Republicans only wish to provide peace in Iraq, and beleive Iraq and the USA would be worse off if troops were redeployed out. My opponent has not provided cause or proof to claim Iraq was "unjust," not that it would concede different outcome in this debate, as Democrats "jumped on the bandwagon" as they always do in order to get elected then NEVER follow through,.. case in point,.. last federal elections when Dems took the majority of the house and senate on promise to end the war,... 2 years later NOTHING,.. in fact they have passed to large war spending bills backed by republicans, and a large troop SURGE!!! Pathetic do nothing dems,..

** homosexuality **

The God-given sacramental bond in marriage between one man and one woman is God's loving provision for procreation and family life, and sexual activity is to be practiced only within the bonds of Holy Matrimony.<<< AFFIRMATION of Saint Louis,.. From the texts of Catholic principles of morality.

www.angilicancatholic.net

** the economy **

Perhaps my opponent doesnt understand the meaning that my provided verse has,... It shows the socialism is not always the better way,.. it is better to teach than to simply give,.. better for all. Socialism is often associated with Dem views,.. welfare etc... Dems give out welfare,.. repubs give out jobs.

** the environment **

Again my opponent has not provided even an example to back up these claims,.. I have.. The NRCS was developed under republican policy,... Natural resource conservation service is probalby the most active and crucial entity in enviornmental stewardship EVER!! The Clinton administration vetoed nearly SIX spending bills that would have locked several thousand acres into reserve programs!! Yuck,.. the truth hurts,.. don't buy into stereotypes, the Dems maybe louder, but the republicans say ACTION is louder than just DEM talk!!

** guns **

My opponent conceded this one to me.

** religion in the public **

Here is where my opponent takes the catholic principles of morality into their own hands,... I will list the ACTUAL published Catholic Principles of Morality now,..!!

1. Duties of Catholic heirichy.
"We disclaim any right or competence to suppress, alter or amend any of the ancient Ecumenical Creeds and definitions of Faith, to set aside or depart from Holy Scripture, or to alter or deviate from the essential pre-requisites of any Sacrament."
- This means, my opponent's attempt to "throw out" the bible is WRONG,.. according to the catholic church.

2.The conscience, as the inherent knowledge of right and wrong, cannot stand alone as a sovereign arbiter of morals. Every Christian is obligated to form his conscience by the Divine Moral Law and the Mind of Christ as revealed in Holy Scriptures, and by the teaching and Tradition of the Church. We hold that when the Christian conscience is thus properly informed and ruled, it must affirm the following moral principles:

Individual Responsibility
All people, individually and collectively, are responsible to their Creator for their acts, motives, thoughts and words, since "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ . . ."

Sanctity of Human Life
Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; and that the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful.

Man's Duty to God
All people are bound by the dictates of the Natural Law and by the revealed Will of God, insofar as they can discern them.

Family Life
The God-given sacramental bond in marriage between one man and one woman is God's loving provision for procreation and family life, and sexual activity is to be practiced only within the bonds of Holy Matrimony.

Man as Sinner
We recognize that man, as inheritor of original sin, is "very far gone from original righteousness," and as a rebel against God's authority is liable to His righteous judgment.

Man and God's Grace
We recognize, too, that God loves His children and particularly has shown it forth in the redemptive work of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that man cannot be saved by any effort of his own, but by the Grace of God, through repentance and acceptance of God's forgiveness.

Christian's Duty to be Moral
We believe, therefore, it is the duty of the Church and her members to bear witness to Christian Morality, to follow it in their lives, and to reject the false standards of the world.
===========================================================================

There it is the code,.. the list of principles of morality as governed by the Catholic church!

These codes, make clear, my opening round points,.. These are Catholic views,.. As most should be able to see,... in terms of Catholic views, and most evangilical views,.. they are more in line with "mainstream" conservative views,.. conservative or republican,.. Like it or not,.. it is what it is, and I made my case,.. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Numa made it pretty clear to me,... Catholic principles are more in line with Democratic party ideals,.. I proved other wise,... Numa picked the topic, not me, I even offered a chance to argue broadly christians, rather than catholics specifically, catholics are very stern in christian faith in general,... More rules, more tighter "guidelines," if you will. Must remember CATHOLICS adhere to the governing body of the Vatican,.. The catholic religion is self governing body that runs much deeper than any other faith, made of appointed officials that are assigned specific duties and rules to be enforced.

Christians are not brought up to simply respect and revere,.. they are brought up to FEAR god,... God fearing morals, follow the teachings, give over yourself unto the lord and you will saved from eternal damnnation. The fires of hell, flesh eating beasts, etc.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
bthr004 - I think you misunderstood numa's point. I'm not positive, but what I took from this debate was the fact that numa was essentially calling a lot of things hypocritical...? I don't know. I may be completely off base here. But for instance, in R3 you said that all non-Christians, according t the Vatican, will go to Hell. And numa's point throughout the debate has been that she doesn't want to rely on the VATICAN for answers but rather the message itself. Damning non-Christians to Hell for something out of their control is completely contradictory to the loving God that Catholics are taught to respect and revere. I think this debate became more about challenging Catholic rules verses their beliefs. For instance, numa concedes that according to Christian teaching, homosexuality is a sin... And Con proves this by quoting St. Louis (even though Pro specifically asked that "official documents" not be involved). But numa was saying that according to the VALUES taught to Catholics, it is illogical to be against gay marriage and things of that nature. I'm torn because in terms of the resolution, Con clearly wins this debate. However he did not adhere to the conditions expressed by Pro whilst posting, even though Con CHOSE to accept the debate. Hmm. My vote goes to Con, mostly because I think Pro strayed way too off topic (though I understood and frankly agree with her points). Good luck.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
numabthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
numabthr004Tied
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 pitz004 7 years ago
pitz004
numabthr004Tied
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 numa 7 years ago
numa
numabthr004Tied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
numabthr004Tied
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 solo 8 years ago
solo
numabthr004Tied
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 bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
numabthr004Tied
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 aaltobartok 8 years ago
aaltobartok
numabthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
numabthr004Tied
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 mjoveny 8 years ago
mjoveny
numabthr004Tied
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