The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
63 Points
The Contender
mrmatt505
Con (against)
Winning
105 Points

the Clintons are the most corrupt politicians ever in the history of the US government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 12/9/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,222 times Debate No: 197
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (52)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

Just do a google search on "Clinton Scandals"

I challenge all you Clinton lover democrats to answer the 100s of REAL scandals, deaths and out and out felonies that were and are IGNORED by the lackey mainstream press

I dont have a problem with any of the other democrats- just the Clintons

For example (just a few)

Vince Foster and Ron Brown
WACO
Ruby Ridge
the FBI files on their opponents
the China donors, the Lippo Group
1000s of illegal donors fleeing the country
Selling our nuclear secrets to China for $$ (Loral and Schwartz)
WAG the DOG- bombing every bridge on the danube
Elian Gonzalez

and many many others

comon- kool aid drinkers - lets have at it - I love to eat liberals for lunch
mrmatt505

Con

First, we must realize that all politicians are corrupt, the real question is who can get away with what? Second, when you type in any phrase about the most corrupt politicians in the history of the US, one would clearly see that few of the articles specify that the "Clinton's" are the most corrupt politicians in the history of the US but rather they state that there is little evidence to convict them of such a claim. Third, I will advocate that the Clinton's must be doing something right because Bill Clinton is help as one of the most prestigious men in the WORLD. He is second in the world as most favored politician amongst foreigners. Also, Hillary is currently a senator meaning that she must be doing something right as well. What you will all see in this debate, is that the Clinton's are NOT as corrupt as Solarman1969 states they are and I will advocate that there have been far more corrupt politicians in the past. Others will advocate that Nixon was the most corrupt politician in the history of the US but rather, he was one of the few who have ever gotten caught.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

I will simply prove my argument , that given the SHEER NUMBER OF UNBELEIVEABLE SCANDALS and OUTRIGHT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR that the Clintons have completely gotten away with , there is no one to even compare.

I notice that in the comments alot the vitriol is against the lapdog media, which has NEVER done its job in investigating or questioning the Clitons.

Let me first totally pick apart your weak defenses, MrMatt505 (and BTW thanks for taking me up on this)

#1 First, we must realize that all politicians are corrupt, the real question is who can get away with what?

So first we have the common defense of the Clintons "everybody does it" along with the corrolary "its all about sex"

this is how, by the way, Moveon.org was FORMED. trying to convince us to "move on" from investigation of Clintons corruption

So all politicans are corrupt so therefore we should ignore the blatant and flagrant violation of the laws and modes of decency?

everbody purjures themselves under oath and then denies it to the camera?

everybody takes millions in illegal campaign contributions from drug dealers, falons, illegals, the communist Chinese military?

everybody has hundreds of foreign nationals flee the country when supposed to testify under oath?

everybody abuses interns in the oval office? rapes? sexually assaults?
and then smears and abuses the character of any woman brave enough to stand up against it?

everybody had hundeds of questionable deaths of close friends and loved ones, many of which through gunshots and converups?

Is this really what you are willing to accept from your political leaders?

are you really that hard core a demoncat?

#2 defense of the indefensible

Second, when you type in any phrase about the most corrupt politicians in the history of the US, one would clearly see that few of the articles specify that the "Clinton's" are the most corrupt politicians in the history of the US but rather they state that there is little evidence to convict them of such a claim.

So all this evidence is just a right wing conspiracy? or are you just admiring them for getting away with all their criminality?

First of all, I will remind you that Bill Clinton was impeached and convicted of lying under oath and lost his license. More importantly , he did not step down

Second , here are some stats for you

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

there is plenty more at places like http://prorev.com...

I will add what I consider the MOST EGREGIOUS and SCARY events.

a) the murder, yes murder, of their 30 year personal attorney, Vince Foster

just before the sh** hit the fan on their troubled history, he mysteriously dies of a gunshot wound in a park ; the FBI director was fired there has been a herculean effort to try and cover it up to this day- and I think to most people it is unthinkable, so they just black it out

BTW - Ron Brown, same thing - bullet to the head - right before he brought them down under oath - same cover up

b) WACO - over 80 men women and children gassed and burned by the BATF.

NOONE, inclding Reno, steps down or is punished over this atrocity

c) the bombing campaign of the Serbs, to aid the KLA terrorists, by Nato-marked USAF planes

I hope this at least shakes your attachment to these people a bit, but you will likely just lash out at me for pointing it out to you

#3 Third, I will advocate that the Clinton's must be doing something right because Bill Clinton is help as one of the most prestigious men in the WORLD. He is second in the world as most favored politician amongst foreigners. Also, Hillary is currently a senator meaning that she must be doing something right as well.

So being elected by democrats and being popular means you can get away with blantant felonies?

I guess so, at least among democrats.

Republicans would not put up with such nonsense, which is why they made Dick Nixon resign over the stupid and meaningless watergate break in, where Liddy ended up doing 7 years behind bars

and this is your next point, bash old Dick Nixon once again.

#4 What you will all see in this debate, is that the Clinton's are NOT as corrupt as Solarman1969 states they are and I will advocate that there have been far more corrupt politicians in the past. Others will advocate that Nixon was the most corrupt politician in the history of the US but rather, he was one of the few who have ever gotten caught.

Well, I certainly dont think so. Please point out a list approaching what I have put forth on the Clintons on Ol' Dick if you can.

Im suprised that you didnt try to bash Ronald Reagan- usually my liberal friends choose to bash him over and over.

Now the reason why I am trying to bring this to light, and revisit the utter corruption of the Clintons, is so you dems are not wooed by those crooks anymore, and depose them from the titular heads of your party.

It is long time for them to go, and the dems to get their moral compass back and become and honest oppostion again

(I dont know if this is even possible anymore given how bad the Pelosi-Reid dems have slid)

Now, to be fair, Bill Clinton did recently write a new book, Giving, which is a honest attempt to address the awful conditions of the poor and how to help.

I think he is a hick with a good heart in alot of ways, and is likeable, even if he is a corrupt rogue with no moral compass at all or any control over his lusts, which is the sign of a weak man with no father.

Not so, Hillary. She is an conniving liar commie who will stop at nothing to have power power and more power. She is evil to the core. Watch the evil that she starts throwing at Obama soon as things are going badly for her.

My sincere hope is that the democrat party puts these crooks to rest, and brings back people like Jack and Bobby Kennedy, or like Liberman, who although liberal , genuninely care about this country and the poor, not the party first.

But sigh! Look at what the left has done to poor Joe.

your turn, Mr Matt, Clinton apologist.
mrmatt505

Con

First, I am not saying that we must ignore corruption, rather I am stating that in the wording of the topic which is very important to take into consideration,
the Clinton's are not the MOST corrupt politicians of them all. I will admit I am not a big fan of President Bush and I will prove that he is more corrupt than either of the Clintons in my fourth contention. Second, you are digging into the specific "corrupt" acts that the Clintons have done. No one politician is the exact same as another and therefore the truth of who is more corrupt by going off of one persons corruption defeats the entire purpose of this debate.

Second, this debate as divvied away from what you have set it up to be and you have attempted to make it into a question of whether we should place either Clinton in any form of office.
Third, under our form of government, one is innocent until proven guilty, or are you still living in the dark ages? Clinton was never convicted or proven to
be guilty of the charges except for having sexual affairs and being impeached. His personal life has little business in the political realm and also, Nixon was also impeached and he is not considered the MOST corrupt politician of all time.

Fourth, Bush has shown little remorse for being responsible for millions of deaths around the world especially in Iraq. It is just a political arena rather than an arena of morals. Bush justified going into Iraq on the outset because of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and received his evidence from the Italians. In his State of the Union Address, he stated that this evidence was proof that we must intervene. Little to the knowledge of most Americans, weeks before the address was given, Bush had received notice that the letters were fraudulent. Then he claims that we must "stay the course" to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. After that he states that democracy must be instated in Iraq to make things better when in reality the Iraqis don't want us there, democracy fails, and we have made problems worse. Now he claims for the purpose of stability. That is just a bunch of bunk! Oil, oil, oil, and more oil is the real reason so that he can make his friends happy and has been empirically proven time and time again.

Fifth, I still only have to prove that there has been ONE politician who has been more corrupt than the Clintons. I can think to two. Benedict Arnold, and Aaron Burr. Both betrayed their country and attempted to sell America out to the British and Burr killed one of the most intelligent people of all time, Alexander Hamilton. Neither man holds any dignity, honor, or place in "good politicians". This is evidence enough to refute your topic entirely.

Sixth, "Im suprised that you didnt try to bash Ronald Reagan- usually my liberal friends choose to bash him over and over." You assume I am a liberal when in reality I am a moderate looking for the best and worse qualities of people from the past, present, and future and weighing them together. Quite frankly, Reagan wasn't all that bad and has sure done better than other presidents.

Seventh, If it is a debate of effectiveness on the Clinton's parts (which is where you are steering the debate), very few presidents can ever, EVER, boast about how strong their foreign relations are which is key in this day and age with globalization, free trade, and political interlinings'. Finally, cross-apply this to contention four, under Clinton we had NO national debt and we maintained trade and spending. Under Bush, we are currently under a $9.2 Trillion dollar debt that continues to increase.

Eighth, Republicans have just as much fault as democrats and you are generalizing democrats as corrupt, not just the Clintons which means that you are imposing stigmatisms (which I am thoroughly against.) This is wrong because you must look to the individuals and it isn't my fault that you hate democrats.

Ninth, There have been a schnikey load of politicians in America's past and by using an absolutist term, you are destroying the ideas of moderation which should be an automatic turn-off for anyone who reads anything you write.

Tenth, I remind you again that all I have to do is win that one person has been more corrupt in the past than the Clintons to win this debate and I have provided three, Bush, Arnold, and Burr, pick your politician, they all three killed more people and have been proven to have done such than the allegations on either Clinton.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

Well since you havent come up with any facts to support your wild assertions, that being that the CLintons are by far the most corrupt politicans ever. In fact you havent debated ONE of my factual records presented, but I do see that you are only 16, and probably dont even remember the Clintons at all.

For a 16 year old, you are pretty bright and well written :)

here are your supposed contenders for the vaunted title of most corrupt US politican ever

(a) Bush - No real arguments , just Bush Derangement Syndrome

no convictions of anyone (except poor Scooter in a witch hunt over nothing)
no illegal donors
no one fleeing the country
no mysterious deaths- not ONE
no reckless and political use of the military without votes by both houses

and so on, I will totally pick apart your BDS (Bush Derangement Syndome) later

(b) Nixon - He resigned, and had honor for far less egregious violations of the public trust

you state Nixon was also impeached and he is not considered the MOST corrupt politician of all time.

He was NOT impeached- he resigned, honorably, after he learned the Republicans would abandon him if he tried to resist.

This actually highlights the difference between the parties- the repubicans will not put up with corruption nearly as much as democrats (although they are getting worse, sad to say)

(c) Benedict Arnold - your really going to go back that far - the revolutionary war?

He was a traitor, but not a corrupt American politican, and became a Brit actually after the war- he was disillusioned about being treated badly by Washington after he was quite brave in battles for the revolutionary Army.

this fact actually spared his life after he switched sides

(d) Aaron Burr

Well, for all you non-history buffs

http://en.wikipedia.org...

He was killed in a duel with Hamilton over Hamilton trashing his family honor- hardly corrupt, and again OBSCURE

Hey, while we're at it, how about Harding and the Teapot Dome Scandal?

So, that pretty much ends the debate, you have come up with noone even in the league of the Clintons in terms of corruption

But considering I love debates I will pick apart all the rest of your arguments for fun, and for you to learn a bit, since you have obviously been propagandized by the left.

I will try and educate you a little bit

lets look at this statement of yours

you have attempted to make it into a question of whether we should place either Clinton in any form of office. Third, under our form of government, one is innocent until proven guilty, or are you still living in the dark ages? Clinton was never convicted or proven to be guilty of the charges except for having sexual affairs and being impeached. His personal life has little business in the political realm

This is dissembling nonsense. and personal affairs DO affect business and politics. BIG TIME.

My father once told me " If you see a man lie to his wife, he will lie to you about anything " Are only some felonies, such as perjury, worth punishing , and others not?

Remember also that the press is TOTAL LACKEYS for CLinton.

If BUSH tried to get away with 1 /50,000 th of what Clinton gets a TOTAL PASS on , he would have been impeached years ago by a relentless drumbeat of the press, along with the democrats, like they did to poor Dick Nixon.

The make mountains out of molehills for Republicans and Conservatives, and give COMPLETE UTTER PASSES and SUPPORT to democrats.

You are just not old enough to discern the bias , and you dont likely take him to read the other side ie freerepublic.com, one of the best and oldest news sites, or listen to Rush, Sean, Mark, Laura, Rusty and the many other talk show hosts who constantly pick apart the news bias.

You will notice that noone listens to liberals on the radio - theyre boring

NEXT POINTS BY YOU about IRAQ (one by one)

Fourth, Bush has shown little remorse for being responsible for millions of deaths around the world especially in Iraq.

Huh? are you saying that Bush personally orders people killed ?

Are you saying our incredible brave men and women in the military are deliberately killing civilians ?

Do you think Islam is a threat ? Did 9/11 happen ?

Who do you think is responsible for all the IEDs and bombs in Iraq?

NEXT POINT BY YOU

Bush justified going into Iraq on the outset because of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and received his evidence from the Italians.

Huh ?

In his State of the Union Address, he stated that this evidence was proof that we must intervene. Little to the knowledge of most Americans, weeks before the address was given, Bush had received notice that the letters were fraudulent.
Then he claims that we must "stay the course" to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

Right, and we didnt have votes by both houses (Hillary voted yes BTW) and 15 different UN resolutions authorizing force to remove Saddam.

Is this what your are really saying?

It was ALL BUSH! HE DID IT ALL! HE FOOLED EVERYONE AND LIED! PEOPLE DIED!

After that he states that democracy must be instated in Iraq to make things better when in reality the Iraqis don't want us there, democracy fails, and we have made problems worse.

Well, they did vote, didnt they? Saddam and his sadistic sons are dead and buried, right?

Do you have any proof that the Iraqis dont want us there? You would get about 70-80% support for us being there right now.

Now he claims for the purpose of stability. That is just a bunch of bunk! Oil, oil, oil, and more oil is the real reason so that he can make his friends happy and has been empirically proven time and time again.

Well here you have a point.

thats why I am SOLARMAN and HYDROGEN GUY! thats the answer to not cuddling up to distasteful dictators like the Saud's and Chavez

YOUR NEXT POINT

Seventh, If it is a debate of effectiveness on the Clinton's parts

I can assure you it is NOT.

YOUR FINAL POINT

There have been a schnikey load of politicians in America's past and by using an absolutist term, you are destroying the ideas of moderation which should be an automatic turn-off for anyone who reads anything you write.

So moderates are superior?

Ok, sure.

I like how Rush puts it : People in the middle of the road get run over.

here is some advice for you from Winston Churchill:

If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart.

If you are 40 and not conservative, you have no brain.
mrmatt505

Con

First, I do commend and thank you for this debate and hope that we have many more in the future.

Second, the media is not Clinton run, that is just an absurd assertion that should never be taken into account because most of the media is more conservative oriented and that holds a lot of political clout for the Republican Party.

Next, I have refuted the arguments that have been brought up about the Clintons, and all of the arguments presented by the pro can easily be grouped into this one, dropped, argument. The Clinton's were never proven guilty on the accounts that Solarman has said they were.

And, you said, "He (Burr) was killed in a duel with Hamilton over Hamilton trashing his family honor- hardly corrupt, and again OBSCURE" – Uh, hello! Your own source says that Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel and Burr killed him. Then he fled to the frontier, escaped further scrutiny from Americans, and went to England. Before all of this, he betrayed his country, almost lost the Revolutionary War for the Americans, and he still killed a man who refused to shoot him in a duel. Yes, Hamilton did not fire upon Burr and Burr knew this and maliciously killed Hamilton. Burr is still THE most corrupt political figure of the United States. Also, yes I am going that far back because the topic leaves the past open.

Next, you answered none of by Bush arguments which is paramount because if I can win a risk that Bush has set a precedent in Iraq that has killed more people than the allegations against the Clinton's, then I have won this debate. You asked rhetorical questions without making any statements and FYI, I have family in Iraq telling me that there is A LOT of unneeded killing in Iraq because Bush is so bull-headed on the issue. The terrorists aren't, and probably never were in Iraq. They are in Mexico (yes, Mexico), Iran, North African nations, and some have found safe haven in other Middle Eastern countries. The war in Iraq is nothing but a show of idiocy! No, I am not saying Bush did all of that, he doesn't have the capacity to do that, but the Republican Party sure could have, and did. There is irrefutable evidence out their stating as much. National polls show that no one in America or Iraq wants the US IN Iraq. I can count on one hand the amount of people who think Iraq is a good thing.

And, you question my credibility and think me to be na�ve. I don't think spending 4-6 hours a day researching a plethora of sources for debate and for forensics on sites from anarchists to conservative, to the craziest liberals in the world! No, there are no qualifications in that!

And, all I have to win is a risk that there has been one, just one political figure who was more corrupt than the Clintons. The Clintons are not as bad as you state they are because Bill is still a highly renowned figure in the global community, he believes in giving aid to people who need it, and was never convicted of killing anyone. You have nothing left in this round except your dignity.

Finally, I would rather have heart and fight for something I believe in than have a manufactured brain and be a robot.
-Matt
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
the problem with you kids under 20 is that YOU DONT EVEN REMEMBER THE CLINTON DAYS- you were like 5 years old!

Unfotunately, the alternate media (talk radio and the internet) were only beginning then, or the Klingtongs would have been toast

I still remember when near Christmas 1998 DRUDGE broke the blue dress story - that was fun times

it is a SHAME what damage the Clintons have done to this nation, and continue to do

Fortunately , you young democrats seem to understand and see through Hillary's act- she is corrupt and evil to the core

Go Obama !
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Solarman, I think you are over dramatizing something that doesn't happen as often as you say.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
you democrat Clinton apologists never cease to amaze me

He could flat out kill someone in front of a camera, and then tell you that "it depends on the meaning of death is" and all you libs would go

"Sigh! Ohhhhhhh Bill " We BELIEVE YOU!

It really is quite an amazing phenomenon- I am in awe of Billy's prowess with you silly libs
Posted by HatedvsLoved 9 years ago
HatedvsLoved
ineffablesquirrel - That did clear it up. Thanks.
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
I agree with Dullurd. Also with Spencerific on the news comment.....I think what he said makes a lot of sense.
Posted by dullurd 9 years ago
dullurd
I don't really know how anyone could claim with a straight face that Clinton was worse than Dubya. Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, abridging habeas corpus, secret military prisons, waterboarding, the PATRIOT act which infringes on the 1st amendment (if you're served with a subpoena under it, you aren't allowed to tell anyone, not your spouse, not your lawyar, and if you do, you face up to 5 years in prison), the Protect America Act, Abu Ghraib, disbanding the Iraqi army, not guarding the weapon depots, etc.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
If you read spencerific's comments carefully, they are easily understood. New stations "sensationalize" what they think will create viewers for them. They are a business and their business is getting viewers. If they cannot get viewers, they go out of business (to use a simple analogy). This causes them to report what WILL get viewers (i.e. bad Pres ratings, murders, rapes, celebrity news, crisis situations, etc), even though this isn't indicative of the overall picture of the world.

Hatedvsloved, as spencerific said certain new media leans one way or the other, while some are neutral. Overall, he was saying (in response to Phil) that news media is not CLEARLY LIBERALLY bias. They have bias, but it is not clearly liberally. Hope that clears something up.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
MrMatt's arguments were far more intellectual as far as the debate goes. Solarman seems to just want to LASH out against the Clinton's and not truly understand the situations in which the corruptions occurred (or carefully, thoughtfully, and logically explain the FACTS).
Posted by HatedvsLoved 9 years ago
HatedvsLoved
Spencerific - How could the media not be biased???? A few months ago everyone was talking about the surge in Iraq and how it wasn't working and blaming it all on Bush. Now, with fewer deaths per month and the new government getting a handle on things no one is talking about it. They were talking about it before because it made him look bad. You contradicted yourself. When the press is only talking about one side of the story, regardless of who is president, then it is biased.
Posted by Spencerific 9 years ago
Spencerific
ok..
First. The mainstream media/press (being national news sources) is not liberally biased. They publish what makes news. Numerous polls show Fox news leaning conservative, CNN Liberal, and MSNBC is shown to be most neutral to viewers (variates back and forth). We must take into consideration that news it no longer news, but entertainment. Therefore, in my opinion, it can't be "biased." They just want ratings, and with a republican president, it is easiest to attack him (not only because he is an idiot [my opinion], but also because he is the center of attention). Same thing happened with Clinton. The press attacked Bill and Hillary for eight years and all the liberals screamed that the press was slanting everything toward the republicans. It's just how the system works. What makes the most ratings makes the news.

Second. The Clinton's have had numerous investigations by local, state, and federal judicial officials against them. Bill is releasing his papers faster than any president before him (sense the bill pertaining to presidential papers was passed) and is encouraging the archives to release them faster. What do you want from them? They have answered every question and you can't let it go that they haven't been "caught" yet. Well, maybe they didn't do anything. I mean, technically they are innocent until proven guilty (which they haven't been). Now, this isn't to say they are perfect or have done nothing wrong; but they have also done almost everything reasonable asked of them to clear up these disputes. So, I say, when George Bush does MORE than the Clintons to clear up disputes, it's hard to judge them for "not being honest."
52 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 mrmatt505 8 years ago
mrmatt505
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 padfo0t 8 years ago
padfo0t
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 Greendonut 9 years ago
Greendonut
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 richguy_69 9 years ago
richguy_69
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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 tarsjake 9 years ago
tarsjake
Solarman1969mrmatt505Tied
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