The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

the ACLU is a criminal, communist group and should be disbanded by the justice department

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2007 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,283 times Debate No: 1087
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (28)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

the ACLU, or the American Criminal Licentiousness Union, is a criminal cabal, undermining the tenets of America, and trying to destroy this nation from within

they attack the boy scouts, the flag, the military, God, Christians, and pretty much anything good

they support liars, criminals, terrorists, child molesters, and democrats, not necessarily in that order

Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:

the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);

the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);

the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);

the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);

the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);

opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);

opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);

opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);

opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)

-- not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).

This organization should immediately be disbanded and most of the leadership arrested and thrown in jail (at least those that arent already in jail or under indictment for Child Pornography and other offenses)

This organization was founded by a hardened communist, Roger Baldwin

I quote here

The founder of the American Civil Liberties Union was a card-carrying communist whose goal was to undermine the Judeo-Christian foundations of America, according to author David Kupelian.

The ACLU is "engaged in trying to eliminate every vestige of Judeo-Christian expression in public places in America," Kupelian explained in his landmark book, The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom, according to a review by Agape press. "It's frightening -- and they are using our tax dollars to do this. They use the laws of the land to get American taxpayers to spend their hard-earned money, actually financing their own destruction."

The ultimate goal of the ACLU is to see an America "with little or no public vestige left of religious faith and the traditional family," according to the Alliance Defense Fund's Alan Sears and Craig Osten, who wrote the book, The ACLU vs. America.

The goals of the ACLU were clear from the group's founding, as indicated by the writings of its founder, Roger Baldwin: "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal."

The ACLU "positions itself as the great defender of rights, [but] is against the right of parents not to allow their children to participate in assemblies and curricula that actively undermine and ridicule their religious beliefs," according to Sears and Osten, commenting on the ACLU's successful bid to force public school children in California to attend classes that indoctrinate them with homosexual propaganda.

and of course the LOSER SCUM JIMMY CARTER HONORED HIM

On January 16, 1981, President Jimmy Carter awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union and the International League for Human Rights. While lauded as a champion of human and civil rights both domestically and internationally, Dr. Baldwin left behind as his legacy an institution that is fundamentally un-American and subversive to the principles upon which America was founded.

Baldwin, who visited the Soviet Union in 1927, was greatly intrigued by Communism. So intrigued was Baldwin by the Soviets that in 1928 he released the book Liberty Under the Soviets. To most, anything besides the conclusion that liberty under the Soviets did not exist is counter-intuitive. Baldwin, however, looked to the Soviet Union as a sort of "superprogressive" state. In addition to Baldwin's ties with members of the Communist Party USA, William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, two of the first board members of the ACLU, would later become card-carrying Communists.

Despite the ACLU's efforts to paint themselves as the "nation's guardians of liberty," their history points to a group bent on the destruction of freedom, Christianity, and America itself. Tom Krannawitter of the Claremont Institute argues that "a powerful faction within the ACLU has been determined to remake America along ‘progressive,' if not communist lines."

Among the ACLU's repertoire of victories are cases involving the defense of Communists, anarchists, Ku Klux Klansmen, and those who sought to overthrow American government. More recently, the ACLU attacked the city of Redlands, California for displaying a small cross in their city's seal. Unable to face the well-funded and well-staffed ACLU, the debt-ridden city was forced to cower as the pack of ACLU lawyers mounted. Nearby, Los Angeles County was also under attack for a similar display of the city's heritage. Why is it that the ACLU attacks a small cross, nestled below the larger and more visible Greek goddess of vegetation on the Los Angeles seal?

From its inception, the ACLU has worked to create a new America. To do so, the ACLU found it necessary to achieve two main things: first, the abolishment of Constitutional barriers to governmental power and second, the enervation of man's soul to make him weak and dependent on government. Both of which move America towards a progressive state and, according to Dr. Krannawitter, are advanced by "removing God from the American mind."

In order for the ACLU to tear down constitutional barriers to governmental power, they must extinguish America's fundamental belief in God, since such a belief is an essential denial of the supreme power of government. Rights come from God, not government. When God's presence in the American mindset ceases, however, people no longer look to God as the grantor of rights but to government. Thus, the ACLU argues that the more power the government has, the better off the people under it are. If one looks at the history of the Soviet Union and any other Communist country, one will be apt to find Communist leaders who predicated their form of government on atheism and a secular state religion. This sort of anti-religious atmosphere precludes the existence of any rights beyond that which the government has granted.

In addition to the emphasis on the source of rights and governmental power, the ACLU has worked to make people needy and dependent on government. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of those like the ACLU who wished to exacerbate the malignant tendencies of democracy. He explained that the government, if people allow it to do so, will create an incessant dependency of the people on the government as it expands its power under the guise of utility, finally reducing "each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd." The ACLU seeks not only to create a people that are dependent and needy, but also a government that "little by little extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls" by giving them all they want, so that they will be naively content without hopes, dreams, or a will of their own. This is a sort of despotism unlike any other.

Christianity is an antidote to the ACLU's despotism and poison that is dependency on the government. It goes hand-in-hand with limited government and personal responsibility since it instructs individuals to trust in God for provision and it teaches people a strong work ethic.

Ok scared boy - were on!
Tatarize

Con

The ACLU protects civil liberties.
You are certifiably insane.
The ACLU protects civil liberties.

The Boy Scouts are a private organization with discrimination (anti-gay, anti-atheist) as a policy. However, they still receive federal funds. This rightly should stop. They can only have the funds or the discrimination, not both.

The ACLU protects the civil liberties of the military, Christians, and all citizens.

1) Prostitution should be legalized. Keeping it illegal promotes pimps and back alley deals. Regulation in daylight will protect women from abuse.
2) Pornography is free speech.
3) Drug criminalization has done more harm than good.
4) There's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
5) The government use and forced rating system from within the industry would be prevented if the state had control. However, due to the private nature of the MPAA you either censure your film or you make no money.
6) You should not need your parent's/spouse's/pet's permission to have a medical procedure regardless of your age.
7) When the remainder of somebody's life is pain, they should be allowed to end it. Mercy isn't evil, it's human.

However, none of this makes the ACLU criminal, communist, nor *ABLE* to be disbanded by the justice department. It's independent. Your suggested remedy is non-existent as a possibility.

Again, you are insane. Secondly, I seriously doubt you're actually a Buddhist. I don't even think it's possible that you were a Buddhist in a past life (I've never heard of a Buddhist with karma *THAT* bad).

I do, however, urge those of you with some biases on this issue to do some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.aclu.org...

Even those of you who realize that the ACLU isn't criminal nor communist, nor able to be disbanded by the justice department, may still have a falsely negative view of the ACLU. There probably won't be much debate as solarman usually drops into incoherent ranting shortly after his fingers hit the keys. Which is not to say you shouldn't verse yourself on the issue and perhaps rid your self of a bias (or become more grounded in your beliefs) because of Solarman's activities.

Observe:
Not all Muslims are evil.

-- Expect a few paragraphs about how evil and Satanic Muslims are; don't bother to read those paragraphs.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

Ok first of all you simply try and use Stalinist liberal tactics from the outset and throughout

attack me- attack me- attack me -

Here is a compendium of your attacks

You are certifiably insane.

Again, you are insane. Secondly, I seriously doubt you're actually a Buddhist. I don't even think it's possible that you were a Buddhist in a past life (I've never heard of a Buddhist with karma *THAT* bad).

There probably won't be much debate as solarman usually drops into incoherent ranting shortly after his fingers hit the keys. Which is not to say you shouldn't verse yourself on the issue and perhaps rid your self of a bias (or become more grounded in your beliefs) because of Solarman's activities.

and now the red herring - change the tactic final liberal tactic, to distract from your weenie arguments

Observe:
Not all Muslims are evil.

Uhm------ exactly how are muslims involved with the ACLU, other than the ACLU defended terrorists, as they do all awful terrible dangerous criminals

Now, despite your silly pathetic attempts to attack me, I will ignore you and continue with my assault agsint this heinous organization and make my case for prosecution under the RICO statutes.

This is from www.stoptheaclu.org

(1) they are commies

Roger Nash Baldwin : the founder, and director of ACLU. At the time of the founding, he was deeply involved in the communist movement. In late 1935, he gave a speech that said his political goal was communism. Baldwin wrote the following in his college yearbook:

"I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal"."

(2) The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment. (policy 47)

(3) Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts. (no reference needed)

(4) The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it's the ACLU's top priority. It most definitely takes a backseat to free speech for the ACLU.

(5) The ACLU advocate open borders. Not only have the ACLU opposed the Minute Men, a group who are simply exercizing their freedom of speech, protesting and stepping up where the government is failing, but they have helped illegals cross the border.

(6) The ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of "seperation of Church and State", the ACLU have made a name for theirself on being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history.

(7) The ACLU Opposes National Security. The ACLU have opposed almost every effort in the arena of national security. From the bird flu to bag searches, the ACLU have been against it. No matter what kind of search someone tries to do to protect people, the ACLU have proved they are against them across the board. Its kind of ironic that they don't practice the principles they preach.

(8) The ACLU Defend the enemy. They have a long history of this one. They defended the P.L.O. in 1985. They defended Quadafi in the 1980's. And they continue today. They have told Gitmo detainees they have the right to remain silent, as in not talking to interrogators. One issue that really disturbs me is their refusal of funds from organizations such as the United Way that were concerned the money would be used to support terrorism.

(9) The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

In fact a numnber of their chapter leaders have been convicted for, or are currently under indictement for, CHILD PORN, one of the worst crimes

CASE IN POINT- Sept 7 2007 (only ONE of seven current cases)

A former Arlington County youth sports coach and civil rights lawyer who once headed Virginia's American Civil Liberties Union chapter was sentenced today to seven years in federal prison for buying child pornography that prosecutors labeled sadistic and masochistic.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, pleaded guilty in June to downloading hundreds of pornographic images of children as young as 4. Authorities said Rust-Tierney used a computer in his 11-year-old son's bedroom to view the files, which included a six-minute video that depicted sexual torture of children, set to a song by the rock band Nine Inch Nails.

This is SCUM OF THE EARTH BEHAVIOR THERE IS NOTHING SICKER

the ACLU exists for entirely evil and nefarious reasons, and masquerades as a "civil rights" group

anytime you hear anyone use the term "civil rights", become suspect

the ACLU exists to PROTECT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY and FURTHER THE CAUSE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA

thus it should be disbanded, and its membership arrested , and its records siezed as evidence.

I rest my case, and lose the vote

becuase you kids are a bunch of SAPS who buy the nonsense you hear from two talking know nothings like my opponent here

SOLARMAN
Tatarize

Con

>>You are certifiably insane.

This is not an attack. It's a statement of fact. You really don't have everything right upstairs.

----

Again, the ACLU is not criminal. They defend civil liberties.
Again, the ACLU is not communist. They defend civil liberties (and communists don't tend to have them).
Again, the ACLU cannot be disbanded by the justice department. They are a non-profit group which defends civil liberties.

Porn may not be everybody's bag, nor protecting free speech from hateful people, but the ACLU protects the civil liberties of all Americans. As such, they defend civil liberties from all erosion, not just at the point where you think civil liberties should start (I'm not really sure if you believe in civil liberties at all). However, no part of protecting civil liberties qualifies as anything you put in the topic.

Baldwin wrote a book The New Slavery condemning communism, and in the 40s lead the campaign to get rid of the communists from the ACLU (not that there were many).*

* I only address this because it actually hinted at the topic at hand.

Again, seek help.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

You have lost, clearly, and cannot defend the indefensible

all you can do is attack me

nonetheless , congrats on winning the vote from the ninconpoop kids

like I care....
Tatarize

Con

The ACLU is not criminal. They defend civil liberties.
The ACLU is not communist. They defend civil liberties (and communists don't tend to have them).
The ACLU cannot be disbanded by the justice department. They are a non-profit group which defends civil liberties.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
Arguments - Pro. Needs no explaining.
Conduct - Pro. Well, duh...
Reliable sources - Tie
S&G - I'll just flip a coin... Tadaa, Pro.

I have no idea how the worst and most aggressive debater (read: Teen with a lot of angst) always wins.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Hardly resorted. I logically concluded some of my comments. I didn't forgo actually demolishing his argument.
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
Tatalize resorted to ad hominm attacks and points of agree with the ACLU, but did not attempt the impossible: to refute sany of the scary policies of the ACLU. Of course they avoid breaking the law, directly, they merely champion those who do. They defend the enemies of the US and file amicus briefs in the prosecutin of American patriots.

Please don't repeat the ridiculous claim that the establishment clause forbids a manger scene at Christmas. "The congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion NOR THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF." If it is legal to protest religion in a govt. park - and it is - then it must be legal to promote religion, in that same park.

The ACLU is a subversive organization. Subversive in its intent to destroy traditional values through the destruction of traditions.
Drugs have done more harm than drug criminalization.
The ACLU has defended NAMBLA as well as individual pedifiles. That alone gives reason for solarman's displeasure with them. Disband? No. Eschew? Yes.
Posted by AndrewNietzsche 9 years ago
AndrewNietzsche
Hm, I wasn't trying to atack you, Solarman. I was simply wanting to know what your purpose was. I don't appreciate the insults, and they shouldn't have much of a place in debate. That being said, I enjoy listning to your rants, altough I rarely agree with you. Regardless of what others think, I believe you argue your points well (usually).
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
"The shrill left is never more so than when their beloved ACLU is attacked. Several of these fellow travlers have said that solarman offered no evidence of his accusations. The accusations are self describing indictments. If they are accurate articles of incorporation - I believe they are - then it is up to the nay-sayers to present evidence that they are untrue. Instead I read a diatribe of ad hominem invectives, posing as reasoned argument. Just read the profiles of these 'intellectuals'. They indict themselves."

I am by no means a member of the "Shrill Left," (nor am I a huge fan of the ACLU) but the bottom line remains that Solarman utterly failed to prove that the ACLU is a "criminal cabal," a "Communist organization," or provide any grounds under which the Justice Department could legitimately disband the organization.

Nobody has presented any evidence that the ACLU is doing anything illegal. There is nothing unlawful or criminal about taking unpopular positions or defending unpopular clients. Furthermore, as one poster pointed out the, ACLU (apparently at Roger Baldwin's direction) attempted to purge itself of Communists in the 1940's.

I don't know what "Articles of Incorporation" you're referring to. Nobody has posted the ACLU's Articles of Incorporation to this forum. So far, all we've seen are quotes from Roger Baldwin and quotes from outsiders about the ACLU.
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
The shrill left is never more so than when their beloved ACLU is attacked. Several of these fellow travlers have said that solarman offered no evidence of his accusations. The accusations are self describing indictments. If they are accurate articles of incorporation - I believe they are - then it is up to the nay-sayers to present evidence that they are untrue. Instead I read a diatribe of ad hominem invectives, posing as reasoned argument. Just read the profiles of these 'intellectuals'. They indict themselves.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
"The ACLU "positions itself as the great defender of rights, [but] is against the right of parents not to allow their children to participate in assemblies and curricula that actively undermine and ridicule their religious beliefs," according to Sears and Osten, commenting on the ACLU's successful bid to force public school children in California to attend classes that indoctrinate them with homosexual propaganda."

Just so people are aware, this is a complete mischaracterization of what happened in that case (I believe the case being referred to is Fields v. Palmdale School District). I wasn't aware the ACLU was involved in this case, but nevertheless:

The parents attempted to basically have a federal court effectively redesign a school's curriculum under the guise of a constitutional "right" to educate their children (as important as it undoubtedly is for parents to be able to raise and educate their children, my attempt to locate such a "right" in the Constitution has been unsuccessful).

To start with, apparently there was some sort of opt-out procedure, and there appears to have been a dispute over whether it was properly followed. Regardless, parents clearly do not have a constitutional right to have a judge redesign the curriculum or have their children excluded from class simply because they believe the subject-matter undermines and/or ridicules their beliefs. Otherwise, parents would be able to have judges step in and have their kids excluded from virtually any class or dictate what the school is permitted to teach.

This is not to imply that parents should be forced to sit idly by if they oppose aspects of a school's curriculum. That's what school board meetings, parent-teacher conferences, and board elections are for. What you can't do is march into federal court under the guise of a non-existant constitutional "right". Those who disagree can hardly claim to oppose "judicial activism."
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
"TheMasterBrask - Is correct about the last half of his statement: Neither the Boy Scouts -- nor any other private organization -- should be subjected to "anti-discrimination" laws that violate the rights of free association and private contract. I want to see conservatives take up this case across the board, though; not just when it's convenient."

I consider myself both a Conservative and a strict constructionist in terms of constitutional law. As with abortion, I am aware of no provision in the Constitution providing either for a right of "free association" or a general right of "private contract," free of state regulation.

Both of these purported "rights" were made up by the Supreme Court -- with the alleged "right to contract" later rightly falling into disfavor, and the alleged right of "free association" has, correctly, been held not to bar anti-discrimination laws.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
"If you think Homosexuality should be allowed in the Boy Scouts, you are crazy. I am an Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts, and I know that putting Homosexual Men in Boyscouts would pull it apart, and turn it into another Catholic Church. Boy Scouts is a private organization, so technically they shouldn't have you telling them what to do with funding."

This statement is puzzling. How, exactly, would permitting openly gay people tear the Boy Scouts apart? The Catholic Church analogy is odd since, as far as I'm aware, they don't permit openly gay people to become priests.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
"If they found a town made up ENTIRELY of christians who happened to have a antivity scene out for christmas in some state government building, they would sue. Absolutely. Theyre just kind of nuts."

The scenario you describe is impossible. The ACLU is just a group of lawyers. Lawyers cannot bring a lawsuit without clients. Therefore, anytime the ACLU brings a lawsuit against a nativity scene or whatever else is on public property, it means that somebody who lives in that town is objecting to the nativity scene and has asked the ACLU to represent them.

For what it's worth, I happen to believe that the mere presence of religious symbols on public property does not violate the Establishment clause, but demonizing people simply because they disagree with that viewpoint and are suing based on a good-faith interpretation of what the Constitution requires is not right.
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 wheelhouse3 9 years ago
wheelhouse3
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
Solarman1969TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03