The Instigator
Double_R
Pro (for)
Winning
109 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

izbo10 is an Idiot and a Troll

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 17 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,682 times Debate No: 17285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (71)
Votes (17)

 

Double_R

Pro

Round 1 for acceptance only. The burden of proof will be on me to show that izbo10 is both and idiot and a troll.
Debate Round No. 1
Double_R

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent (for such an easy victory) and wish him (not really) the best of luck. Unless specified, all information I provide can be verified at http://www.debate.org...


izbo10 is an idiot.

Idiot: An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

1.
His debates: izbo10 has been in 7 debates. He has lost 6 of them, with his only win currently at a score of 2-1. As I write this he is loosing all his debates by a combined score of 166-20.

2.
Mental deficiency: izbo got into a debate with KRfournier about a week ago where he lost the debate badly (34-3) because he did not know how to handle his opponent’s argument. Izbo’s specifically stated in his own rules: “This debate is not about arguments for god”, yet he begins his final round with: “So far, my opponent has not even attempting an articulate argument for the rationality of god”… ok

6 of the 7 voters who voted against him explained to him that he lost because he did not argue his own resolution. But he is too mentally deficient to understand this. He instead goes on a temper tangent challenging everyone who voted against him to defend KRfournier’s argument.

In his last debate with Grape (currently at 47-0) he again does the same thing he did with KRfournier by not recognizing that he contradicted his own resolution in his own rules by saying that: “The rule is simple you must defend this being a valid argument for the Invisible Pink Unicorn.”. Grape then correctly pointed out the definition of the word valid and showed the following argument:

Valid – in logic, an argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises

Let the entire above argument by KRFournier be called K
Let the invisible pink unicorn be called P

P1. K
P2. K → P
C1. P

Grapes argument that KRfournier’s argument flows logically was clearly an adequate point. But did Izbo address his opponents point as this was his mistake before? Of course not. He then takes the next round to refute KRFouriers conclusion instead of the argument made by Grape who he was debating.

3.
Izbo10 has horrendous spelling and grammar. Everybody who has read any of his debates knows this and almost everybody comments on it. Here is the last message he sent me:

"the resolution was he needed to argue it was a valid or in other words a good argument for the ipu."

Where to begin? Ok “The” should be capitalized because it is the first letter of a sentence. The word “was” should come after “he needed to argue”, and the word “that” would also help. There should also be a coma after “valid”. Lastly, since “ipu” is an acronym for “invisible pink unicorn” it should be capitalized. So let’s see how this comes together now:

The resolution he needed to argue was that it was valid, or in other words a good argument for the IPU.

I may have gotten one or two points wrong but either way, a definite improvement.

4.
Self defeating and counter productive: izbo has gone on clear temper tantrums about loosing his debates yet he continues to challenge others to debate the same topic he has already lost numerous times. In his debate with Grape he has so far posted 46 comments, almost every single one of them either still arguing the topic he has lost now 3 times, or calling someone an idiot or some other third grade insult. This is obviously not going to accomplish anything.

In his debate with grape he even attacks the readers multiple times. Here are two of his offenses:

“So now with this said I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see”

“Imagine you replace IPU with Allah, allah for the idiots here is the muslim god, who is defined as the one true god and no other gods exist he is mutually exclusive.”

Way to win a debate.

5.
More deficiency: He ignores advice on how to improve his debating. Besides the many voters who explained why they voted against him (that he still doesn’t understand) here is some of the advice he received:

“you don't seem to communicate in writing the same thing you are thinking. First, the title of the debate--on this site--typically states the resolution at debate.” KRfournier

“Debate is not about being more logical. Debate is about explaining your logic to the barely literate idiots who abound on this community. Do that - and everyone will vote for you!” Baggins

“You lost that debate because you sucked at debating.” Thaddeous

“It is not the readers responsibility to "take the time" to understand anything. It is your responsibility to show the readers why your argument is valid and why your opponents argument is not.” Me, followed by…

“Double R, it is correct.” Man-is-good

“Your first round argument doesn't even fit your position on the proposition.” KaytarHero

6.
izbo actually accepted this debate. Enough said.

Izbo is a troll

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

7.
Challenging his opponents: As I mentioned, he challenged everybody (or damn near) who voted against him to debate the topic he already lost. This alone is considered by most to be trolling but does not even scratch the surface with izbo. Here is the message he sent to my profile after voting against him:

“double r before f**king voting on debates and whining that i am discussing rks argument you might have wanted to figure the f**k out that guess what the debate was about rk's argument. F**king moron.”

The “F” words were not censored when I received this message. BTW “i” should be capitalized.

8.
His comments: I went to his debate with Grape and found that in the last 4 comment pages alone he has posted 12 comments. Here is what I found in only those 12 comments:

“anybody who voted for that moron kr, really needs to justify this argument, you can't get away with wearing your a$$ as a hat on here with me.”

“KRfournier presented this as his argument for it being rational to place faith in a specific god, since a bunch of idiots voted for this argument they are being challenged to defend it for ipu…”

“only lopsided to f'n morons who don't understand that rationality has to do with beliefs that have the best chance of being right, you guys have the combined intelligence of an ant.

“the stupidity on here hurts seriously.”

“oh boy i was just thinking this through his argument is really really really really to the point of absurdity retarded… Wow how retarded are you people.”

“I suppose cliff you were too ignorant to notice that blatant mistake of combining all the beliefs rather then judging them individually.”

“I may have conceded it but there is also the possibility that i thought the argument was so stupid you idiots should see through it, under normal expectations.”

“hmm how many times do i need to say yes cliff, I have said yes 10 times now again i fear you have zero reading comprehension.”

9.
We all know it: izbo has been on this site for only 3 weeks and despite loosing 6 out of 7 debates, most of the readers already know who he is. Only trolls accomplish this.

10.
He creates forums to complain about his losses (how pathetic):
http://www.debate.org...

Summary

Would I loose conduct for calling him an idiot, being that he accepted my challenge to defend the statement that he is an idiot? When I get some feedback from you guys on if I can call him an idiot I might just call him an idiot, but for now I will refrain from calling him an idiot because I would not want voters who think that I am calling him an idiot and take away conduct points because clearly, I never derogatively called him an idiot.
izbo10

Con

. His debates: izbo10 has been in 7 debates. He has lost 6 of them, with his only win currently at a score of 2-1. As I write this he is loosing all his debates by a combined score of 166-20.

A majority of these votes come from christians. It should be expected from studies of Iq and the recent pew research poll that christians don't understand religous topics very well. Logic is also another topic that most college students struggle through, I remember having to help several people through logic 1 and the math version numbers,sets, and structures so to base it on the masses opinion is a argument from authority or majority fallacy and a poor authority or majority at that. I know, I know, cliff, you don't grasp a argument from majority fallacy and you badly need me to explain it, your lack of education here is not my concern so stop thinking it is. I am asking you to consider the fact of whether I am correct that it is an argument from majority.

sources:
http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]

http://pewresearch.org...

2. Mental deficiency: izbo got into a debate with KRfournier about a week ago where he lost the debate badly (34-3) because he did not know how to handle his opponent’s argument. Izbo’s specifically stated in his own rules: “This debate is not about arguments for god”, yet he begins his final round with: “So far, my opponent has not even attempting an articulate argument for the rationality of god”… ok

A semantics game here, because I saved some characters by not typing rationality of believing in a specific god, he is attacking me here, which by the way was the point.

6 of the 7 voters who voted against him explained to him that he lost because he did not argue his own resolution. But he is too mentally deficient to understand this. He instead goes on a temper tangent challenging everyone who voted against him to defend KRfournier’s argument

See what I said about argument from majority before.

Grapes argument that KRfournier’s argument flows logically was clearly an adequate point. But did Izbo address his opponents point as this was his mistake before? Of course not. He then takes the next round to refute KRFouriers conclusion instead of the argument made by Grape who he was debating.


I did address the point, my opponent being to stupid to comprehend a point, is not a failure to address a point, to put my argument in a basic form here.


Krfournier's argument can prove to the same person that it is rational to have faith in allah and yahweh(jewish verion) and Jesus.

These 3 are mutually exclusive, meaning if 1 is right the other 3 is wrong. Also since this debate was about only placing faith in one specific god, he needed to address the dismissal of the other gods, he did not. I even called him on this.

So, I then went onto show that to use faith alone would have this form:

The other 2 gods are not worthy of my faith by faith alone.

My god is worthy of faith alone.

Therefore my god is not unworthy of faih by faith alone

From wikipedia, on special pleading.
Form:

Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.

I do apologize that my opponent here is so stupid he needs things spelled out but we shall continue to spell this out for him, so that maybe he will learn something. Since being rational is to be in accordance with logic, and we have shown the only way to pick a specific god is through special pleading and that is a logical fallacy his conclusion can't be true. Plus his conclusion once again, never addresses a specific god. I know, I know you guys are too dense to grasp this very easy concept of special pleading.

3. Izbo10 has horrendous spelling and grammar. Everybody who has read any of his debates knows this and almost everybody comments on it. Here is the last message he sent me:

"the resolution was he needed to argue it was a valid or in other words a good argument for the ipu."

Where to begin? Ok “The” should be capitalized because it is the first letter of a sentence. The word “was” should come after “he needed to argue”, and the word “that” would also help. There should also be a coma after “valid”. Lastly, since “ipu” is an acronym for “invisible pink unicorn” it should be capitalized. So let’s see how this comes together now:

The resolution he needed to argue was that it was valid, or in other words a good argument for the IPU.

I may have gotten one or two points wrong but either way, a definite improvement.

Get this I admit to not being careful with my grammar on the internet, I am more focused on my point then the grammar.


Just a few things I wanted to get out there. The rest of it is simple, my opponent throws out quotes, but never even attempts to show how those quotes make me an idiot. As for being a troll by some definitions I may be a troll, but that is neither here nor there, my opponent needs to demonstrate I am both and idiot and troll. He has shown an inability to argue the first.


Debate Round No. 2
Double_R

Pro

Wow. I don’t think I have to say anything but… it’ll be fun. Let’s start with Izbo's conclusion:

“my opponent needs to demonstrate I am both and idiot and troll. He has shown an inability to argue the first.”

Here goes that mental deficiency again. Let’s look at the definition of the word idiot… again:

Idiot: An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

The word “or” in this definition means that either example would suffice. Izbo gives a very poor refutation against mental deficiency, but even if there are other Izbo’s out there who will buy his deficiency argument, he still did not even bother to address the second example. By the rules of any debate, this would count as a concession. Being that he still had 2,000 characters left to refute the second example but didn't bother he is either: A) mentally deficient because he does not understand what the word “or” means, making him an idiot or B) he is significantly counterproductive by arguing that he is not an idiot, while demonstrating that he is self-defeating by conceding my point, making him an idiot.

He also conceded the troll argument so by this point I have already proven that he is an idiot and a troll and thus, I have already won this debate. But just for fun, I’ll continue…

In round 2 I posted 6 examples of DDO members giving Izbo advice on why he lost the debate. These examples demonstrate very clearly that he should be well aware that the main reason he lost to KRfournier and continues to loose is because of his own inability to debate, not necessarily because of the logic of his arguments. This point has been hammered to him by everyone since his trolling began, but he still does not understand it. (mental deficiency) More on this throughout…

1
. Debates: Izbo actually tries to justify his debate losses with this opening statement:

“A majority of these votes come from christians. It should be expected from studies of Iq and the recent pew research poll that christians don't understand religous topics very well.”

He then continues to make his "Christians are stupid and don’t understand religion" argument as his reason for loosing so badly. 3 of his 6 losses account for most of his point difference. In those 3 debates, out of what I counted to so far be 26 votes, 23 have made it clear in one way or another that a major reason or the main reason they voted against him was because of his inability to debate or his trolling. Yet instead of understanding this he decides to show us that Christians are stupid as the reason he lost. k

He then gave me a real good laugh (thanks Izbo) with this statement from his first round 2 paragraph:

“I know, I know, cliff, you don't grasp a argument from majority fallacy and you badly need me to explain it, your lack of education here is not my concern so stop thinking it is. I am asking you to consider the fact of whether I am correct that it is an argument from majority.”

Who is he talking too? Cliff? Where you at Cliff? I don’t see Cliff anywhere in this debate. Do you? Maybe in the comments? Perhaps it would be a good idea for Izbo to argue with him over there. But it’s hardly surprising. I hate to say I called it, but if you look at my vote comment in his debate with Grape I did say he should learn to debate his own opponent (more advice he ignores). By the way it’s “an argument” not “a argument”

Recap:

Mental deficiency:
his own inability to debate and trolling lost him most of his debates, not the IQ of Christians. He should know this. Arguing with imaginary DDO members does not help.

Self-defeating and counter productive
: insulting the voters is not a good way to win an argument which proven by his concluding statement he is clearly trying to do.

2.
Mental Deficiency: Izbo responds to my argument here with a series of responses to my quotes. Here is his first quote:

“A semantics game here, because I saved some characters by not typing rationality of believing in a specific god, he is attacking me here”

Saved some characters? The part he did not originally type was “specific god”, however the phrase that was brought to his attention that he never addressed was:

“This debate is not about arguments for god, but when somebody reverts back to saying, you just have to have faith, that, that very statement makes it illogical.

Because Izbo needs his hand held on this one I will explain: When Izbo stated that it was not about arguments for god he made it very clear that god was being used as the example of his debate topic which was the logic in using faith. If the debate is about the logic in using faith then KRfournier does not have to choose a specific god and defend his choice because god is not the topic, logic in using faith is. There may be some flaws with KRfourniers argument (that he would have had the opportunity to defended if Izbo understood how to debate) but once KR made this point clear, Izbo never refuted it and just kept repeating himself. That is why he lost. (does anyone think he will get it now?)

Anyway… next Izbo responds to my quote about the 6 of 7 voters who voted against him with this:

See what I said about argument from majority before.”

Huh? My comment had nothing to do with majority. The point of the quote was to show that everyone who voted against him explained that they voted against him because of his inability to debate, so if he was not mentally deficient he would have been able to understand why he lost and learn from his mistakes. Instead he pointlessly challenges everyone who voted against him to defend an argument they did not necessarily agree with in the first place. It is clear they did not necessarily agree with it because they explained full well what there vote was based on. But he still doesn’t get it.

Izbo then goes on to defend his logical argument. Blahh blahh blahh. No one cares. That is not what all this is about.

3.
Izbo10 has horrendous spelling and grammar: Izbo then pastes my 774 character argument against his spelling and grammar, just to say he doesn’t care about grammar. k

Just for fun…

If you have not already done so, please copy the word “ maranimacons ”, paste it into your google search engine and hit enter. For an additional laugh click the link that says “repeat the search with the omitted results included.”

Argumentum ad Populum

It may be a logical fallacy but... Im just letting a few others have a say:

“However at DDO, there are quite a few experts on logic. Realize that you have a lot to learn - and start learning!” Baggins

“Grape is a pretty good name--not great, but alright. But izbo10? What a stupid name." LaissezFaire

“Obvious troll is obvious.” J Kenyon

“Someone call izbo10 a WAAAAAmbulance.” TheNerd

“His writing is incoherent and shows no signs of editing or a basic English education.” Grape

“7pts against for trolling.” ReformedArsenal

"Izbo10, please. You have the poorest skills in logic, grammar, and especially conduct [and communication] that I have seen of a debater yet.” Man-is-good

“Poor izbo” Thaddeus

Conclusion
: In addition to being a troll I have clearly shown that Ibo10…

You are a Freaking IDOT!!!


Voter guide (unnecessary but still fun anyway)

Agreed with before the debate: Obvious

Agreed with after the debate: Obvious

Conduct: He accepted being called an idiot by accepting this challenge. He called me stupid twice. Stupid is worse. Debating with imaginary people doesn’t help either.

Spelling and Grammar: In round 1 “accept.” should be capitalized because it’s the first letter of a sentence. It was the only word in the entire round and he could not get it right.

More convincing arguments: I already affirmed resolution at the beggining. Besides... do you still think he is an idiot and a troll? Enough said.

Most reliable sources: My sources were relevant to the topic of the debate. http://pewresearch.org...?... http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com...? WTF?
izbo10

Con

Im bored with your ignorance here, this is over.

id·i·ot/ˈidēət/Noun
1. A stupid person.
2. A mentally handicapped person

A stupid person does not have a b.a. in college an idiot doesn't read books as a hobby, I do I am not an idiot.
Debate Round No. 3
71 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Izbo, 109-1 should tell you something.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "A stupid person does not have a b.a. in college"

The fact that this is obviously not dispositive aside (it is ridiculously easy to get a BA), I am curious what Izbo's BA is in.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
It wasn't about insulting him, it was about teaching him something. The man really believed he was the smartest member on this site and that we were all idiots. I decided to not only show him that this was not true but also force him to acknowledge his own mistakes which he would not understand no matter who tried to tell him. It's tough to go around calling everybody else idiots when you can't even defend yourself in a debate about weather you are an idiot. I figured this would shut him up. But Izbo never ceased to amaze us
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by KristophKP 5 years ago
KristophKP
@ Double_R

I read it carefully and thoroughly, and found it to be a waste of your valuable time. If an individual is inappropriate and not worth your time then why bother with him? You are too intelligent to reduce your capabilities to that of providing good reasoning for what amounts to nothing more than an insult.
Posted by adrianaesque 5 years ago
adrianaesque
HAHAHAHAHA this is flippin' hilarious.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
KristophKP, perhaps you should read the debate a little more carefully. I have much better things to do then argue with people like Izbo but he desperately needed somebody to put him in his place. In fact 2 other members commented about how they were going to offer the same challenge.
Posted by KristophKP 5 years ago
KristophKP
Reducing one's self to this manner of debating is an insult against your own virtues. Do you find your time worthy? If yes, then why spend it in such a manner?
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
I almost feel guilty for how hilarious this was.

"A stupid person does not have a b.a. in college an idiot doesn't read books as a hobby, I do I am not an idiot."

To the contrary, I have known many people who have B.A.'s that read in their spare time who meet a commonly agreeable standard for idiocy, stupidity, what have you. They majored in exercise science, sport's management, retail, early childhood education, or family planning and read The National Enquirer and other such smut. I'm not, of course, saying that this is the case for izbo10; merely remarking upon the possibility of the phenomenon because of the personal experience I have with the subject.

While I have no personal issue with the user isbo10, and I think that the dynamic of this debate was unnecessarily crass, Double_R won the debate. I suppose that would have some rather revealing implications for the user specified in the resolution.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
This was entirely too amusing to read through.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
"I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but you misspelt lose multiple times."

Hey your right. My grammar is not very good either, I do make a lot of mistakes. The fact that I look like an English teacher next to him makes it that much worse. BTW it's misspelled. lol
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering votebomb by Mr. Infidel
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Double_Rizbo10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Haha
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Double_Rizbo10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Yep.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Just so that I could be that one person who just HAD to give izbo a mercy point..... ;D
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
Double_Rizbo10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Para para paradise....
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Double_Rizbo10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A justified vote-bomb.
Vote Placed by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Double_Rizbo10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Amen! I had been wanting to start this debate for some time now! I just couldn't wait to place my vote!
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: By default Double_R wins.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Double_Rizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Double_Rizbo10Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: lol