The Instigator
Bray
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points

pre-pay pumps after dark

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 10/13/2009 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,456 times Debate No: 9687
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (10)

 

Bray

Con

should gas stations make it mandatory to prepay after dark?
ughhh, no. i hate this. i don't WANT to prepay. i hate prepaying, i despise prepaying.

what if i only have so much money on me and i use it all to prepay because i think i want that much, then i realize i want a snickers, or my grandma calls me and i need to buy something for my diabetic uncle on the way home?

then i have to go, find an atm, get out money, go back to the gas station and get what i need. so much time wasted, and gas too!

also, what if i anticipate that i may need to buy something else with the cash i have on me, so don't prepay for as much, then don't have to, and wish i would have done it. or i get a call and i need to drive 30 minutes to pick up my uncle who doesn't have a car? now i don't have enough gas to get there and have to go BACK to the gas station, again with the waste of gas & time.

AND what if i do have loads of money on me, prepay, walk back out there, pump my gas, aand nooooww, i want an icee.. ok, lets walk BACK in there and buy it because i didn't realize i wanted it until AFTER i was done pumping..

sooooo annoying.

why can't we just pump what we need, then pay after?

oh, people pump & run? big deal!

1. aren't there cameras at gas stations?
- you saw their license plate, you saw them, deal with it later!

2. they get to ruin it for me?
- noooot fair, i'm not a thief, i would never have the balls to pump & run, but because some jackazz did it.. i get to suffer.

ridiculous.
Cody_Franklin

Pro

While my opponent's extensive list of random, hypothetical situations is all well and good, but there's something that we need to zero in on. Con states that she hates, even despises, prepaying at the pump, and then she continues by bringing up all these scenarios in which she would be left in a very undesirable situation. What may seem like an inconvenience at first is actually a lesson in personal responsibility.

In the situations brought up by my opponent, she either brings too much money, or too little; if gas stations all mandate prepaying after dark, my opponent will likely develop better personal and financial accountability, by being able to anticipate the needs of those around her, such as those of her grandma, or her uncle, while also anticipating her own desires, such as the desire to buy a snickers; in fact, with the latter, mandatory prepaying may actually teach my opponent not to indulge on every impulsive desire that comes along; by refraining from the purchase of candy bars and Icees, my opponent is not only living a healthier life, possibly losing weight, but is saving money in the process! Clearly, prepaying at the pump is beneficial, and it only causes a minor inconvenience in return.

Furthermore, we can reference my opponent's statement "oh, people pump & run? big deal!" Though my opponent offers some seemingly sensible options, we have to read between the lines; Con is advocating that, so long as it isn't an inconvenience to her, stealing isn't that severe, provided the thief can get away with it. Clearly, we must ensure mandatory prepayment to prevent pump-n-running from becoming an acceptable activity! My opponent obviously doesn't understand the implications of permitting people to get away with thievery, especially when it concerns our precious natural resources. As my opponent, a woman, admits, she doesn't "have the balls" to commit such thievery; while I don't discriminate on gender, Con must accept the minor inconvenience of mandatory prepayment in order to promote vigilance against stealing.

So, let's quickly review the opening reasons to vote Pro:

1. Compulsory prepayment strengthens self-control, and promotes a healthier, arguably sexier figure and lifestyle.

2. Mandatory pay-at-the-pump services make us more receptive to the needs of those around us, like our diabetic uncles, or sweet old grandmas.

3. Obligatory prepaying discourages stealing, though Con advocates letting thieves run free to eliminate personal inconvenience. Take it from a kleptomaniac like myself. Stealing is a serious issue, and cannot be underestimated, regardless of whether or not my opponent's lack of testicles prevents her from understanding the mind of a thief, and the implications of stealing.

4. BONUS ARGUMENT: Even if Con does have to use more gas to get from Point A to Point B, and then to get back, that means that the gas stations, and companies like Shell, Phillips, Chevron, etc. bring in more revenue, which not only stimulates the economy, but also benefits the stockholders (like myself).
Debate Round No. 1
Bray

Con

It is not a lesson of personal responsibily in fact, i usually only carry so much money on me because i have learned that spending cash is simple, and kind of fun for me. when i have cash, i buy things. when i only take out enough cash to purchase what i need (or what i want in the case of a snickers or icee, which i think i deserve every now & then as i work hard, go to school & pay all of my own bills) i don't spend it on foolish things (that cost more than $1.19). when i keep all of my money in my checking account i am less likey to spend it because when i was younger i learned the hard way that swiping my card all the time, left me in debt. carrying limited cash IS my way of staying responsible.. not everyone's, but mine.

you say that i should anticipate the needs of those around me; ok.. can you predict when your uncle without a car gets called in to work and can't get there? can you predict when you're handicapped, helpless, diabetic uncle will have a blood sugar drop and need something? i can't.. if you can, please, please let me know how!

eating a snickers (my favorite candy) or having an icee every now and then is not an unhealthly lifestyle, nor is it breaking me. both items are less than one dollar and they are very enjoyable, no waste of money there! other than my "impulsive desires" to consume a small amount of junk food (in moderation) i lead a very healthy lifestyle, i exercise, i take my vitamins, i eat my fruits & veggies (which i also love) and drink little to almost no soda!

you took my "no big deal" the wrong way, my fault.. i apologize. i am in no way advocating that theft of gasoline is good, or not punishable. of course it is! why do you think i don't have "the balls" to do it? what i was saying is that on the pumps there is typically a sign that says "pumping and running is punishable by law, we have placed security cameras around so don't even try it, 'cause we'll get you, etc.." sooo what i was saying is that although it IS a serious issue, they took measures to ensure that less people do it, and those who DO do it, are caught.. so why isn't that enough? why do i, and others, now have to be inconvenienced by the added pre-paying after dark?

a point i did not make to begin with: theft happens only at gas stations... WRONG. to my knowledge, theft happens in retail stores, restaurants, etc.. so according to the "pre-pay after dark" we can ensure that pump-n-run does not occur in the evening. so with that logic, in the evening, people that order meals when they sit down in a restaurant, well they should probably pre-pay.. you know, to ensure they don't dine-n-dash, right? hmm.. no because what if they want dessert? oh and when someone walks into hollister, having NO IDEA what they want to purchase, since they have not yet walked around, well.. they should have to pre-pay too.. we don't want to have any theft, after all.. no matter how annoying it is for the rest of us.

so,
1. pre-paying does NOT give me self-control, or a "sexier" body (it's pretty good juuust now, thanks!)
2. i'm not a psychic, nor will i ever be.. so that logic does not make sense.
3. they have ALREADY taken measurse to attempt to prevent gasoline theft, why add another that annoys everyone else? and actually, my "lack of testicles" prevents me from stealing gasoline because i know how serious the consequences would be, not because i don't understand the mind of a thief.. because i am one. with clothing, random items from walmart, etc.. not "the big stuff" though, like stealing gas.

bonus;
1. why would i rather stimulate the economy than not waste my gas, time, money, wear my tires, put more miles on my car, etc..?
2. you're a klepto, yet you agree with something that would stimulate the economy? shouldn't you stop stealing if you're so worried about the stimulation of the economy? just saying..
Cody_Franklin

Pro

While I can appreciate my opponent's claimed responsibility, she certainly can't speak for everyone. As my opponent herself admits, her way of handling money is "not everyone's"; the resolution, as she types it, is "should gas stations make it mandatory to prepay after dark?" It's reasonable to assume that not everyone is as responsible as my opponent claims to be, and so obligatory prepayment at gas stations needs to be instituted so that everyone can follow Con's fine example, and, just maybe, Con herself can develop an even higher level of personal accountability; though spending money is "kind of fun" for my opponent, we have to understand that 'having a good time' needs to be balanced with responsibility, and while my opponent has taken multiple steps in the right direction, I reiterate that not everyone has such a conscientious code of conduct, and prepayment at gas stations will help others to take the same types of measures that Con discusses.

When I say that people need to anticipate the needs of those around them, I mean that in a very general sense. For example, my opponent doesn't have to know that her uncle's blood sugar will bottom out, but she could certainly carry some extra cash for that particular purpose; in a broader sense, nighttime prepayment at gas stations will encourage people to bring some extra money to avoid the kinds of situations described by my opponent in round one, like paying too much for gas, then being unable to splurge on a candy bar.

Speaking of candy bars, that brings us to the health argument. Notice that I don't advocate that indulging on these things leads to an unhealthy lifestyle or drains one's wallet; however, I am advocating the positives; refraining from these kinds of indulgences will add up over time, leading to an even healthier lifestyle, and those dollars saved can easily add up over time; and, for those that don't 'junk out' in moderation, prepayment at gas stations will teach people to splurge in temperance. Overall, we'll become a more responsible society if we simply mandate prepayment!

My opponent goes on to admit the horrors of stealing gasoline, which is exactly what I was hoping for! :) Now, because stealing is impermissible, we must understand that, by mandating prepayment after dark, we can easily cut down on gasoline theft by eliminating thieves' ability to pump-n-pay; at least, after dark. Though current security measures stop some thieves, it doesn't stop all of them; I see no reason not to build on our current success by instituting prepayment after dark. I don't know about my opponent, but an inconvenience that takes all of 5 minutes is a reasonable price for cutting down on crime; besides, it seems to me that, since one pays at the pump, and one knows exactly how much money they want to spend before they fill up, there's hardly any inconvenience! In this context, prepayment is definitely a twofer!

Her next arguments take steps away from the resolution; we aren't arguing prepayment at restaurants, or at Hollister; we're arguing this only in the context of gas stations, and that's where I'd like my opponent to keep this debate centered. If she wants to debate prepaying at restaurants, or at Hollister, she can challenge me to a debate over that, also; though, coincidentally, prepayment to prevent dine-n-dashers, by having them pay for each course or drink they order before they get it, would probably be a pretty good idea. It's almost like my opponent is affirming the resolution for me!

1. Prepayment builds on Con's current self-control, and forces other people to learn some. We aren't arguing this topic based on what my opponent most prefers; there ARE other people in the world. :) Also, as far as my opponent's looks are concerned... "pics or you're lying", as the kids say.

2. Refer to the argument above, regarding how being receptive to the needs of others can be as simple as carrying some extra cash, just in case an incident were to occur.

3. Though I've agreed that measures are in place to protect against gasoline thievery, that doesn't discredit the effectiveness of mandatory prepayment as a further measure to combat stealing; as I explained, instituting another measure to build on top of existing success is obviously a good decision, even if we accept that it could be a minor annoyance to some people. As someone who admitted that stealing should be discouraged, my opponent should agree that any extra measures to combat thievery should be encouraged, regardless of the 'inconvenience'.

4. Bonus argument!!! :D

a. Once again, the resolution isn't being argued on whether or not my opponent likes mandatory prepayment; this topic centers on whether or not we should, as a general rule, institute obligatory prepayment. I don't always like the inconvenience of taxes, but that doesn't give me license to stop paying them. Stimulation of the economy helps not only my opponent, but it helps everyone, by making more money available and lowering prices on consumer goods. Regardless of my opponent's apathy over our economy, the fact that prepayment aids our entire economy is more than reason enough to vote Pro.

b. I'm not certain as to why being a kleptomaniac equates lack of compassion for the state of our economy; while I care about the stimulation of our economy, kleptomania is a psychological condition that makes it nearly impossible for me to not take things when the opportunity arises; this argument is an ad hominem, tu quoque, and a non sequitur all balled up into one.

With that being said, I've got Fettuccine Alfredo to cook, and I do apologize if this round sounds a bit absent-minded on my part. I'm hungry, and I never think well when I'm hungry. :( Good luck to my opponent in Round 3, though!
Debate Round No. 2
Bray

Con

it was not absent-minded at all, it was long, thoughtful, created a lot of good points (some that i agree with), and was quite humorous, at times. you are a very good debater and i would not be surprised at all if you won, due to how well you speak & argue but, still i think that it is ridiculous to make pre-payment mandatory. yes, because it annoys me but also because, as you said.. there ARE other people in the world.. many are ALSO annoyed with pre-payment.

stealing is a horror, yes. but we can't just institute measure after measure after measure for everything that is a horror, we'd never be able to do anything! by the way, pre-payment probably takes less than 5 minutes, as you said, but still.. it's an annoyance that many people suffer because of SOME thieves. there are so many other measures that can be taken that DON'T annoy the honest, paying customer SUCH AS: (according to gas theft.com )

Setup surveillance cameras (even dummy cams) to deter theives, video footage is proof of theft.
Do NOT authorize cars with no plates, covered plates, or who pull in backwards.
Simply WATCH and make eye contact with drivers who are pumping gas, if they feel they are being watched, they will not drive away without paying.
Always know which pumps have and have not paid for their gas. Knowing makes it a lot easier to spot cars driving away without paying.
Train employees to write down license plate information as well as car and people descriptions for anyone suspicious.
Keep a "hot list" of known theives and share information with other stations.

NONE of those things annoy me!
NONE of those things will cause me to pull up to a gas station, realize it's pre-pay & LEAVE to go to another one (has happened, multiple times!)

if other people are like me and so annoyed with pre-pay that they will leave and go to another, they lose business. why would they want to lose business? now they have less theft AND less paying customers.

i am not saying that we are arguing prepayment at other places, i am saying that it would be the same thing as theft happens everywhere! it's like "oh people steal here lets stop it by making it prepay" then other places "oh hey look what shell is doing, lets do it too!" businesses usually take ideas from one another, why not this one? that is especially scary to think about.. why should people be made to prepay before they even know what they want? what happened to options?!

you say it would "force" others to learn self control.. self control is great to have, don't get me wrong, buuuut why are attempting to FORCE things upon people now? that doesn't seem too fair to me, i don't enjoy being forced to do things, not only do i now enjoy it, i am pretty sure it's not what this country is about. last i knew, usa was SUPPOSED to be a free country.. but now we have so many laws "for the good" of the people that really, imo, just interfere with PERSONAL lives & lifestyles.. it's hardly "free" anymore. (please don't take this the wrong way, i am not saying we are not a free country, as we are much more free than other countries, just that we are heading towards less freedoms)

"pics or you're lying"
..clever! i don't want to be a liar, phone number? lol just kidding. :)

carrying extra cash, now that you mention it, would be a wise thing with my family things that may occur.. maybe i'll begin to do so. but not for you! aand, agreeing with your wise decision to carry extra cash does not mean that i agree that it would be good to prepay!

i also agree with you that it DOES help to decrease gasoline theft, i looked it up, it's gone down tremendously. still, it's annoying! just because something works to decrease a crime, does not mean it should be in place. murder is wrong, but we don't have people tailing people to make sure they don't kill someone, especially if they've never killed before, or look suspicious to kill someone.. that would be annoying. just like making people prepay, who have never stolen gas before and who do not look suspicious, is annoying! don't take this as getting off subject, i in no way want to talk about murder, just an example of another thing that would decrease a crime tremendously that doesn't need to be instituted!

i am not arguing, solely, because i dislike prepayment, i am arguing because MANY people are affected by it. i also dislike taxes and would love to stop paying them, that's another argument though, but i am not saying that i have the license to stop prepaying because it's an inconvenience for me, i am saying that it should be gotten rid of! getting rid of taxes would be great too, but 1. that's a new argument 2. that's a lot more difficult & affects a lot more PEOPLE negatively.. which is what i am worried about, the people.

i love that you use apathy, that's a perfect word! i am rather apathetic when it comes to the economy, you'll see that with me not actually having the psychological condition, kleptomania, but just prefering to take things over paying for them. my bad. honestly, the government, economy, corporate america.. apathetic. if that makes me a bad person, oh well. i care about myself and other PEOPLE. if people are more concerned with instituting law after law that declines crime, then by all means.. vote pro. buuut if people are more concerned with personal lives and lifestyles not being effected just because some people choose to be criminals, vote con.

if he wins, fine. buuuut he should make me fettucine alfredo to make me feel better, 'cause it's my favorite.<3
Cody_Franklin

Pro

My opponent starts out by admitting that she does, in fact, agree with some of my points. Can I get a Pro vote, what, what?!

She furthers her argument about how it is not only she that is annoyed, but she shifts her argument to say that 'many' other people are also annoyed; first of all, my opponent failed to provide any statistics to back up her claim; second of all, the claim that "many people are annoyed by prepayment, therefore it should not be mandatory' is backed up by little else but the ad populum fallacy.

As far as the stealing argument is concerned, my opponent is now falling victim to the slippery slope fallacy, as she assumes that, because prepayment is being put in place as a measure to prevent thievery, there will inevitably be an infinite number of additional anti-theft measures put into operation; however, this is backed up by neither logic nor evidence, thus the argument must be thrown out. Furthermore, my opponent admits that prepayment does indeed require "less than 5 minutes"; as much of my opponent's case is based on the 'inconvenience' factor, this eliminates a good portion of the Con's thesis.

Also, though my opponent gives us a website [http://gastheft.com...], she makes an interesting omission from the list of safety measures: "Change ALL pumps, or high-risk far pumps to pre-pay only." Her sole source does not mention any specific inconveniences for mandating prepayment, and actually lists this as a "Simple Way to Reduce Gas Theft".

As my opponent and I have agreed that prepayment is hardly an inconvenience (taking less than 5 minutes to complete), I fail to see exactly how so many people would become annoyed, that gas stations would actually lose enough revenue through enforcing prepayment to cause a serious issue.

My opponent's next argument all rests on the idea that, with prepayment, people are paying for something before they know what they want. However, it is not as if a person has to pay some arbitrary fee just to gain access to the gas pump; after determining how much money one wants to spend on gas, one simply slips in a card, or pays a certain amount of cash, and gets the corresponding amount of gasoline; with a pump-then-pay system, the amount of money one spends is dependent upon how many gallons of gas one pumps; however, with a pay-then-pump system, one can pay a predetermined amount of money, and pump accordingly; clearly, there are options, as one can choose how much money to spend, so this autonomy isn't taken from us, as Con leads you to believe.

Furthermore, when I say that people will be 'forced' to adopt self-control, I don't mean this in the sense of holding them at gunpoint; I was arguing that, if mandatory prepayment is instated, people will be 'forced' to be responsible in the sense that they will be put into a situation in which it's far simpler to make responsible decisions, and it's less beneficial to step outside of the boundaries of self-restraint than it would have been under a pump-then-pay system. My opponent's argument here is a large appeal to emotion, as she discusses a supposed loss of personal freedom, and an offense against the foundation that America was built on. Clearly, this is backed more by passion than by logic, and must be disregarded.

"pics or you're lying"

(918) 440-9664 ;) Just saying... I want to give you a fair chance to prove your claim. I'm all about fairness. :D

I really like my opponent's next self-contradiction. She likes the idea of carrying extra cash as a wise precaution, but quickly corrects herself by saying that she still doesn't agree with prepayment; however, if prepayment leads to one carrying more cash as a precautionary measure, and my opponent agrees that carrying this money is a good idea, she must also agree with the prepayment that leads to carrying the extra money. Resolution affirmed.

"just because something works to decrease a crime, does not mean it should be in place." - What? So, my opponent agrees that prepayment decreases gasoline theft "tremendously", yet still refuses to allow mandatory prepayment because it's a minor annoyance. Clearly, reduction of crime trumps personal convenience. Once again, resolution affirmed.

"if people are more concerned with instituting law after law that declines crime, then by all means... vote pro." - You heard it from my opponent: if you want to cut down on crime, vote Pro. But, if you want to ignore crime for the sake of personal convenience, pretending like criminals don't exist, then vote Con. I know it may seem like a difficult decision, voters, but I'm sure you'll make the right one.

Normally, my debates are far more serious than this, and I thank my opponent for instigating it, and I thank Kleptin for inspiring me to take a more humorous approach. I very much enjoyed this, and I have one last thing to say to my opponent: If you come over, I will make you some Fettuccine Alfredo. Text me. :)
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by silntwaves 7 years ago
silntwaves
let me solve ur problem for you. PREPAY AT THE PUMP. it solves the theiving (is that a word??) because the gas station people arent gonna cheat you outta ur gas. dood.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Tied - Both debaters played very nice.
Spelling/Grammar: Pro - Con had a number of spelling and grammatical errors.
Arguments: Pro - Con semi-conceded many different arguments, and had a number of arguments based in fallacy.
Sources: Pro - Both debaters used the same source, but Pro cleverly pointed out the omission made by Con in her citation.
Posted by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
debate cards?
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
If I took it, I'd have a pretty interesting angle.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
I want to see who actually decides to take this one. Whoever takes it better be funny, or I'll take it as a personal insult :P
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Annbella 7 years ago
Annbella
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 MistahKurtz 7 years ago
MistahKurtz
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 Pogosama 7 years ago
Pogosama
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 alwaz4dam 7 years ago
alwaz4dam
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by alouhela 7 years ago
alouhela
BrayCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 Eris 7 years ago
Eris
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 simpleton 7 years ago
simpleton
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
BrayCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06