The Instigator
mush16
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Sky_ace25
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

self-harmers should not receive medical attention

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 5 votes the winner is...
Sky_ace25
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,835 times Debate No: 10652
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

mush16

Con

self-harmers are treated like drains on the nhs, nurses and other patients regard you to be a waste of money and time because the injury is self-inflicted. the point is they deserve respect and to be treated with as much care as someone with a broken leg.
Sky_ace25

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for this very interesting debate topic; and i'll try to be brief.

Millions of people in the world are suffering; millions who are not able to get a decent medical care; millions who are suffering as their bodies are tearing themselves apart because of horrible conditions and horrible medical care.

These people didn't get a say in their life. They were born into this Hell and misery; yet my opponent believes that we should pity the people who had everything in their lives and decided to go on and harm themselves. They have devalued their own life by making such a selfish move as to cut or hurt themselves. A smoker shouldn't have priority over the kid who got run over by the drunk driver. The kid suffering, he deserves more care and respect then the pitiless smoker who chooses their own individual faith.

When a poor kid is crying in the emergency room because he has broken his leg severely; should he sit their in agony and torment to wait for some person who has caused themselves injury for their own selfish gain.

In terms of money; do you know how much money we must waste to take care of people who have harmed themselves? Imagine that "x" amount that we could be devoting to help people in OUR OWN COUNTRY WHO HAVE PROBLEMS GOING TO A HOSPITAL. Yet my opponent beliefs that these people should wait in line behind the people who commit self-injury.

A self-injurer is a selfish person who only in extraneous cases it can be proven that their is an actual reason that warrants the pity and comfort of such a person. Personally, I pity the kid who has to suffer from a disease, because his parents can't afford medicine; rather than the kid who cuts themselves to make themselves feel better. It's the same thing with smokers; they made their own rational choice to smoke and thus they deserve their own fate.

For every cause their is an effect; nobody deserves to wait in line behind a smoker or a self-cutter when they are suffering in agony from causes that they can't even control.

For these reasons I stand strongly behind the Pro side of this resolution and I will now pass over the debate to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
mush16

Con

i respect some of my opponents valid arguments. "Millions of people in the world are suffering; millions who are not able to get a decent medical care; millions who are suffering as their bodies are tearing themselves apart because of horrible conditions and horrible medical care."-this is not the fault of anybody personally in any country, it just is. Nobody should be made to feel guilty for being treated like a human, okay acknowledge this fact and appriciate other peoples pain, but that is no reason to turn guilt upon people who are lucky enough to have these resources. It is similar to saying that you dont deserve the clothes on your back or the food on your plate, because people else-where dont have it too.

self injury http://en.wikipedia.org...
i quote from the above link " Self-harm is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) as a symptom of borderline personality disorder and depressive disorders. Self-harm is often associated with a history of trauma and abuse including emotional abuse, sexual abuse, drug dependence, eating disorders, or mental traits such as low self-esteem or perfectionism. However, a statistical analysis is difficult as many self-harmers conceal their injuries." showing that self-harm is indeed related to serious mental-illnesses, which although not physically, still needs attention in a hospital or specialised environment. The fact that it is linked to past trauma such as abuse shows that self-harmers dont "get a say in their life" as the pro failed to recognise.

My opponent is quoted to say "They have devalued their own life by making such a selfish move as to cut or hurt themselves." what this highlights is the ignorance out in the world to issues such as self-injury, people who feel the need to cut dont do it because they love it, or to be a selfish person but because "self-harm often becomes a response to profound and overwhelming emotional pain that cannot be resolved in a more functional way", in keeping all the pain inside of them, they are protecting people around them by not wishing to share, burden or blame other people in anyway.

self-harm is often mistaken for attention-seeking, which i refuse to agree with. In some cultures it is considered fashionable,however i do not consider that behaviour as self-harm, self harm is described as a coping mechanism for emotional turmoil, not fashion statements. therefore people who engage in true self-injury, tend to hide their cuts or evidence of their actions, in shame fear and humiliation because society treats them different. I do not feel the need to pity people who self-harm i feel the need for them to be respected and valued as equal medically to that
"kid who got run over by the drunk driver. "- he may need more care physically but does not "deserve" more respect just because of the situation.

I also refuse to accept any correlation between smoking and self-injury, although smoking causes illness and is for emotional relief, smokers are well catered for in society and medical care, they even get support to stop. And to reitterate the argument was for self-harmers to not recieve any medical attention, not get it first. In hospital, the most serious cases are treated first, the situation or the person does not matter, all that is important is the physical and mental health of the patient. it is for qualified doctors to decide the order of treatment.

i quote my opponent:
"In terms of money; do you know how much money we must waste to take care of people who have harmed themselves? Imagine that "x" amount that we could be devoting to help people in OUR OWN COUNTRY WHO HAVE PROBLEMS GOING TO A HOSPITAL. Yet my opponent beliefs that these people should wait in line behind the people who commit self-injury" I have already stated my belief in the order of treatment. Imagine the money spent on people with obesity and smokers.Imagine the money spent on war, with those countries that cant afford hospital care, for the victims of the war we are fighting. imagine the wasted food. imagine all those clothes you own but never wear. heating, and clean water in your houses. the money spared for a few stitches does not compare, besides the self-harmer pays the price socially- they are misundestood and more money needs to be spent on the education of and attention to mental health.

thankyou i hope you respect my arguments
Sky_ace25

Pro

I will refute my opponents argument paragraph by paragraph.

1. My opponent says that we should just turn our back on this suffering and just accept it. That's the most morally corrupt statement I have ever heard in my life. Also, it is the fault of people in countries because as stated earlier; the resources that go to treat self-injuries could go to help legitimate people who need them. My opponent accepts their is major suffering in the world, but she wants us to turn our back onto it. Her analogy is also false; it would be more like you want Nike shoes because you deserve them when other people in the world can't afford the cheapest brand of shoes. It is a completely selfish view point to turn our back on our fellow humans because they "don't have our resources'. It's because of wasted money that we can't help them any more.

2. I'll accept my opponent's Wikipedia definition. However, she contradicts herself when she says self-harm is related to "serious mental-illness" as her definition explicitly states that it is only "borderline" disorders. This means it is not an extreme case, it might not even be an actual case. I also would like to ask my opponent, does the mother who watches her entire family rot away from viruses not have mental stress? Don't these people have mental anguish? Their real people in our country who can't afford to take care of their own families and we should go squander resources on people who make their own rational choice to hurt themselves. My opponents article states that a "statistical analysis is difficult"; this means it hasn't even been fully proved all the ideas about mental state of self-harmers. Thus my opponent can't base her case on any statistics provided by her source, because an actual analysis is impossible. Yet my opponent has accepted that their are millions of people who are suffering from illnesses that they can't control; yet she believes these people are second-rated to the needs of self-harmers.

3. Again I've made my argument concerning the actual credibility of the source; however to also respond to her argument, THEIR ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK FOR CARE. MY opponent talks about a self-harmer bottling up their emotions so that they won't help others and yet other people don't even have the option to go to a hospital. My opponent believes that mental stress is justification for priority over people who are severely suffering. Again I refute the mental argument by stating; Does a mother not have mental anguish as she watches her children die before her, being powerless to stop it?

4. My opponents source claims that one of the reasons for self harm is the pursuit of "perfectionism". This means that their can be selfish motives behind the enactment of self-harm and thus my argument stands strong in regards to the selfish self-harmers. Further more; how does society treat them different if they are unaware of the injuries in the first place? Also, if society treats them differently then isn't it fair to admit that society finds something morally wrong with self-hurters? Yet, when a kid gets run over do we look at him like he's an alien, or do we immediately call for help over the concern of a person who had no control over his fate? My opponent argues that the kid doesn't deserve more respect; I argue this is false. Since I've proved selfishness can be a reason for self-harm, the idea that a selfish person should have more respect over that of an innocent boy who has just gotten run over by a freak accident is completely irrational in every sense. The people who never had control of their lives deserve much more respect than the people who always had control and made bad decisions.

5. I won't really argue the merits of smoking here; and I understand my opponents counter-argument. In a hospital it's true that the most serious cases should be listened to first. By that definition the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE SUFFERING should have instant priority over any self-harmer who is not about to die. Yet that obviously doesn't happen; thus why is their any reason a self-harmer should get priority?

6. Obesity and Smoking are self-injuries... "Self-harm is often associated... drug dependence, eating disorders" (from my opponents evidence) thus we see that these are self-injuries and yet my opponent believes these people don't deserve medical care and benefits. Thus she is arguing for my case and she is contradicting herself here. I don't understand my opponents further arguments; should we not care for other countries and our own soldiers who go to war? Should we let them rot, because some smoker demands medical care with a smile? Further more how are self-harmers socially harmed at the instant that they hide their injuries? It's obvious we're not even aware of their existence. If they are mis-understood then how is it my opponent can provide a theoretical diagnosis on the potentials and causes of self-injury? My opponent wants even more money to go to these people when she has already listed many other justifiable ways to spend our money. I believe that all houses should have heating and clean water before we start handing out medical care to an obese person. If individuals waste their money that has nothing to do with a hospital's expenditure of money and thus my opponents arguments regarding individual consumption waste is in-valid.

My opponent mainly has gone on a long list of what she believes to be moral reasons that we should give medical care to self-harmers. Yet not only has she made multiple contradictions; she has also devalued the lives of millions who are in complete suffering who can't even complain about their rights to proper health care. She believes the smoker deserves more rights to health care than a poor family has to have clean water. My opponents case is based on a long list of immoral arguments and thus when it comes to the question of which side is the morally correct thing to do; their is no reason why a strong Pro vote shouldn't be affirmed.

I will now hand over the debate to the Con.
Debate Round No. 2
mush16

Con

i dislike the way my opponent has assumed that " i believe" i am quite sure pro is not inside my head.
also would like to highlight the grammatical difference between "their" and "there"
as pro - i will refute my opponents argument by paragraphs,

1. I did not state we should turn our backs on the suffering in the world, it is apparent that we are all aware of it, i quite clearly do not imply that we forget it but- "acknowledge this fact and appriciate other peoples pain, but that is no reason to turn guilt upon people who are lucky enough to have these resources" only to not blame every member of society for taking the opourtunities they have. In your quote "the resources that go to treat self-injuries could go to help legitimate people who need them" you are saying that being a self-harmer is not being a legititimate person and therefore don't NEED treatment. I do not say to turn our backs on fellow human beings because of their resources, that is infact quite irrelevent, i'm saying we shouldnt have to go without because of their lack of medical care.

2. I am honoured that you accepted my wikipedia definition. "history of trauma and abuse including emotional abuse, sexual abuse, drug dependence, eating disorders". I believe (and i know i believe) that the word trauma indicates a significant distress. Also it states that eating disorders lie under the tag of self-injury. If left untreated anorexia nervosa and bulima nervosa can kill, as can drug abuse and overdoses. You say that ignoring these peoples illness is going to benefit the third world. In your eyes they are selfish and dont deserve treatment, not even in a psychiatric hospital?
Yes the mother and fathers infact have mental stress when they have a virus within their family. Consider that the parents turn to self-injury through the stress of the illness, do then become selfish and their worries dismissed? I have not placed self-harmers as first-rate in the needs department. I do not believe or disregard other illnesses over self-injury because in the grand scheme of things worse things happen. My argument is for them to recieve medical attention equal to the rest. If only people who needed medical care were there through no fault of their own, very few people would receive the care they need.

3. i didnt talk about " a self-harmer bottling up their emotions so that they won't help others " i talked about
"in keeping all the pain inside of them, they are protecting people around them by not wishing to share, burden or blame other people in anyway"

4. pro's argument being that self-harm is selfish is true. it is selfish. But then isnt everything we do in life selfish?
self-injury is a coping mechanism therefore other machinisms such as : running, writing, talking, crying.etc are all selfish. the people who run need trainers, the ones who write need a pen, the ones who talk need someone to listen, the ones who cry need tissues, the ones that s-h need professional help to learn healthier ways to cope. Infact his feelings towards the medical care in other countries is selfish because "HE" believes it terrible etc. It is impossible to do a self-less thing because doing something to help others involves you feeling and doing the activity. I can prove society treats them differently with the whole side of your argument. you do not need to see the cuts to judge a self-harmer you have already developed a perception of the type of people self-harmers are. You may not realise someone engages in self-injury until you see the physical signs, and a place where you'd see this is in the hospital, where you dont think they deserve to be because they are selfish and should pay for their actions. you have not proved that self-harm is selfish therefore your arguement "the idea that a selfish person should have more respect over that of an innocent boy who has just gotten run over by a freak accident is completely irrational in every sense" is invalid as your only proof is the word "perfectionism". consider why they strive for perfectionism, to please other people ? because they dont think they're good enough? It is not a cause it is an outcome. Ihe cause here would be "im not good enough i need to do better" then putting themselves under stress to succeed and setting themselves up to fail. you THEN think they're selfish because they felt the need to self-injure. i do argue that the kid doesnt deserve more respect, one's been hit by a car, one's been slashed with a razor-blade, both are still human beings and both dont deserve the pain they're in. your idea that self-harmers have a control over their life that other people don't is also invalid as many self-injurers feel the need to cut/burn/loose weight etc because they feel their life is out of control.

5.this whole paragraph is invalid as i have clearly stated this arguement "was for self-harmers to not recieve any medical attention, not get it first"

6. in my saying that people who are obese and smokers do not deserve medical care and benefits was to reiterate that if self-cutters can't be treated with the same respect as anyone else, neither should the obese or smoking.
my argument: "Imagine the money spent on war, with those countries that cant afford hospital care, for the victims of the war we are fighting. imagine the wasted food. imagine all those clothes you own but never wear. heating, and clean water in your houses" meaning that, those people who you often refer to, as suffering from viruses etc are suffering because their county cant afford it because they are tied up in a war. This in not the fault of anyone.

i am infuriated by pros final paragraph and the statement implying that "she has also devalued the lives of millions who are in complete suffering who can't even complain about their rights to proper health care" in actual fact i feel it is pro who has devalued the lives of millions by disregarding the seriousness of self-injury. Also i feel my oponent is steering away from the actual argument that" they should not recieve medical attention" the lack of treatment for self-harmers will no benefit anybody. I cant find any reason why self-harmers deserve less respect than any other person.

this argument is mega stressful i cannot describe my frustration with the ignorance PRO displays.
Sky_ace25

Pro

I will refute my opponents argument paragraph by paragraph and then give voters.

1. I don't understand my opponents statement here; further more she as for grammatical errors my opponent has made plenty in terms of ensuring her capitals are correct; just look at this paragraph and you will see my point.

2. So my opponent says we should "appreciate" other people's pain. I'm sorry so we should stand bye and do nothing while they are suffering? How is this in any way morally justifiable is beyond me. By the way I am making the argument that self-harmers do not need treatment I accept that. As for my argument it is not irrelevant as I am making the statement that the people suffering without care deserve access to resources even if it's at the expense of these individual self-harmers. Smokers and obese people made their own choices so why should people who never had a choice suffer at their pleasure? Further more don't forget one possible reason for self-harm as my opponent's definition says is "perfectionism"; thus proving that some self-harmers are perfectionists meaning they are only doing it for their own selfish desires. Thus why should we not help the people who are in able to take care of themselves? My opponent has only strengthened my statement, because she is suggesting us to turn our back on the millions who are suffering world-wide; to prioritize the smoker, the obese, and the selfish. I see no justification for this.

3. My opponents own definition says a "history" of trauma. That means that they may not even currently have trauma; further more her definition says that mental problems in self-harmers are "borderline" meaning they have not even been proved to be 100% in existence in the person. Thus this refutes her food disorder argument; further more aren't food disorders a mental state to give somebody their own desire of achieving a "perfect" look? Again just apply my perfectionism argument here that my opponent didn't address in her last refute. Further more many parents deal with stress without self-harming themselves in such a severe manner that would warrant medical care. We are arguing about self-harmers who are in actual need of medical care thus it must be a severe case. Further more my opponent has not proved how an obese, smoker, or anorexic person's lack of treatment would lead to a worst outcome on the grand stage. If anything I contend that the people suffering every day about to die deserve the fundamental right to have the resources that we devote to people who are not even in dire care of these resources; an obese person can live much longer than a person who's entire family is starving to death.

4. At the instant that they are not in such dire care that they can withdraw their emotions how is it that they are in dire need? Their are other mothers who would sell themselves to servitude in order to help their family. They are begging for help. They are clearly in a much more dire need of resources to be allocated too.

5. My opponent admits it's selfish she thus proves the arguments before that are in regards to selfishness. Further more upon closer review of my opponents definitional quote their is never any actual reference to the use as a coping mechanism. It merely states that self-harm is a symptom. Their fore this entire argument is in-valid, because their is never any proof that self-harm is a coping mechanism. Are all fat people going through a struggle that warrants self-harm; not at all. In terms of how society treats them; first of all it must be a case that would warrant medical attention. Further more I can look at a person and be in doubt that they are suffering; I can't look at a starving family and be un-sure if they are suffering. Further more perfectionism is defined as a reason for this symptom and thus my opponent's argument here is in-valid on her own definition. When it comes to the stress argument, I repeat: DOES A MOTHER SEEING HER KIDS SUFFERING IN FRONT OF HER NOT EXPERIENCE MENTAL STRESS FAR SUPERIOR TO THAT OF ANY LONE MENTAL STRUGGLE. Yet millions of people suffering in the world do not resort to self-harm because obviously their is not a large enough quantity to warrant a sufficient statistical analysis as my opponents own definition explains. Thus we head back to the kid scenario; my opponent claims we should forsake this kid because more respect should be given to the guy who for one reason or another decided to cut himself. I contend this is morally corrupt, because we are then prioritizing somebody who may just be cutting them self in their pursuit of selfishness which my opponent has agreed too; while a kid got run over just trying to get home from some "x" location.

6. Take the same theme of my paragraph and re-word it so it suits my opponents criteria; my argument stands strong still that the millions who are suffering deserve all the respect and resources that would be located to a self-harmer who as my opponent admitted are selfish. The person who deserves to be selfish is not a smoker who will still most likely live a while; but a family who is on the verge of death by disease and famine.

7. I don't really fully understand my opponent here as it seems she is trying to avoid refuting my point. She explicitly stated that smokers and obese do not deserve care when they themselves are self-harmers as her definition states that a self-harmer can be a "drug abuser, or a person with a food disorder" so my opponent is clearly supporting my side here. Further more people are in a lack of these basic necessities of life such as water even when their country isn't in a war; their are many countries that are quite peaceful that lack basic supplies. Further more; whether you believe the U.S. currently is/isn't in a war does that mean we should ignore the family that can't even afford to buy affordable heating for their children? The money that is wasted on self-harmers can easily be devoted to better causes as proved time and time again. My opponent has not re-enforced her argument here in any way.

8. I am sorry if my opponent feels I have done her an injustice. However, I would like to point out that the idea that we should just "accept and appreciate suffering and starving people" I would contend is a devaluation of mass life; and my opponent can't refute that these people don't even have the right to proper health care. At the instant that a simple "statistical analysis" can't be proved for self-harm then why is their any justification that their is a seriousness of self-harm? Also, don't forget that we are talking only about severe cases of self-harm that would actually warrant medical attention; thus we have already nullified millions who don't even have the desperate need for medical care. If my opponent wants a simple reason; self-harmers are selfish which she has admitted. A person who can't even beg for the rights to live and goes diving in garbage to get food and/or money I believe deserves the attention and respect that would normally be allocated to a less-worthy self-harmer.

9. This is really just a personal-attack as my opponent never even proves how I am ignorant when she has not even set up a justifiable reason that their is a mass problem with self-harmers. However, nobody would deny that millions are suffering from the lack of food, clothing, and water.

The reasons for voting this debate are simply put that my opponent has not satisfied the reason as to why self-harmers deserve medical care instead of a person who is suffering in critical condition. Self-harmers should be denied their medical care, as remember my opponent has admitted they are selfish, and the attention they would have gotten should be re-allocated to the suffering of millions of other people world-wide which my opponent has not denied exists. Thus their is no reason why a strong vote for the Pro is not to be advised and justified.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
ok?
what am i supose to do now?
Posted by mush16 7 years ago
mush16
lmao! yeah oh i feel really stupid now for getting all heated
apologies for the personal attacks etc
its just a debate :D
you did a good job :D
Posted by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
Ahh lol I do the same thing =P, get all worked up over a debate and then get stressed about every lil nit-picky thing until you finally admit that you did a good job =P whether you win/lose lol. =P
Posted by mush16 7 years ago
mush16
iget into the swing then i get really passionate
then i get frustrated hahah
then i just blow off :D
Posted by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
?? it's just a debate ?? Don't take it personal =P.
Posted by mush16 7 years ago
mush16
oh well...i guess i'm taking it personal
ive been on the receiving end
sorry
Posted by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
First of all each debate is different and thus my stand on one debate can't be applied to this debate.

Further more you can't make arguments in the comments section that can actually apply to voters in the debate.

Further more we are debating about medical attention; fat people are not in dire need of medical attention. Your case fails because you never establish an actual "need" that their is a massive problem of self-harmers who are either oppressed or in dire need of care. Thus we see that in my case I establish their is a massive problem of people who are not self-harmers that are in dire need of care and deserve the care more.

I really am disgusted with all the mis-conudct my opponent is utilizing in trying to win this debate; she obviously is oblivious the fact that just because I am in a debate doesn't mean I endorse or support that stand point. I am in this debate to counter your argument and thus enchance my debating skills and intellect on the subject. In this debate I stand by my arguments and I'd like to ask voters DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THESE COMMENTS. ALL VOTES ARE BASED ON THE DEBATE.
Posted by mush16 7 years ago
mush16
i noticed in another debate my opponent took part in i quote
"To summarize my case; a government can't infringe on the rights of fat people without undermining their legitimacy by going against the majority, harming their economy, or taking away the right of a fat person to freedom of choice."
and i'd like to summerize my case by saying the goverment can't infringe on the rights of self-harmers (to receive appropriate medical care) without underminding their ligitimacy by going against the majority harming their economy (because no the money saved wouldnt go to feed the hungry it'd go to the fund for guns for the war) or taking away the right of a self-harmer to freedom of choice :)
i close my case
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
mush16Sky_ace25Tied
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 Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
mush16Sky_ace25Tied
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 dasamster 7 years ago
dasamster
mush16Sky_ace25Tied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
mush16Sky_ace25Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
mush16Sky_ace25Tied
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