The Instigator
Darkmaff666
Pro (for)
Losing
49 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
56 Points

the legalization of marijuana

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: 10/27/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,155 times Debate No: 9845
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (18)

 

Darkmaff666

Pro

well to start, im sick of getting arrested for carrying at least an ounce of mary jane on me....its not right
so thats why today i argue that we should legalize marijuana in illinois.
many or everyone in illinois would agree, "yes the economy sucks and we need to fix it" -average american
and now we must take a stand.
marijuana has done many great things for us given us a perspective of things in this world that a regular normal life would not give us.
time magazine states In fact, the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness.
this may in fact be true because many of the things that america has tried to do for us by giving us the economic stimulus package and so many bailouts we have to owe ourselves for it....
but our solution has been smoked for over a few thousand years and boy we really need pots help now.
many politicians would be looked at as bad people bc of the legalization but many politicians see that it could help boost the economy. by putting taxes on pot it would be a good thing to everyone. giving the opportunity for new legal marijuana jobs, also it would then take out many out of local or state prisons for marijuana smuggling or any marijuana activity and leave room for the ones who really need it *coughcough*(sex offenders) and we all agree the children are the future to America and now we need to give them a better future a brighter one at that.
by legalizing marijuana we will in fact give them a better future
over 25 million people smoke marijuana and it is the largest cash crop in the United States, and marijuana is grown all over the planet. so no need for the transportation of marijuana anywhere you can just grown it in your backyard or buy it.
many drug dealers who are indeed black or hispanic and tend to reinforce the perception that law enforcement is biased and prejudiced against minorities.
so in order to make America the land of the free and equal we need to legalize marijuana in order to have peace and also love because we will all be tranquil and happy.
also many parents will be glad to know that by legalizing pot will be a good thing. why?
well in a very nice and well mannered world they will sell pot at a nice price in the market which in many ways would be out of their pocket money reach. which would tell the teens who smoke to go out and get jobs...which in the end makes us all happy....parents with working teens and a nice economized U.S
Marijuana's legalization would simplify the development of hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop in the United States, including its development as a new bio-fuel to reduce carbon emissions. stated by http://www.alternet.org... yes this is all true and if canada and europe support this then we should as well.
i mean we want a better way to save money on gas well hemp is the answer.
and going on stated by the same person we see that "Prohibition is based on lies and disinformation. Justification of marijuana's illegality increasingly requires distortions and selective uses of the scientific record, causing harm to the credibility of teachers, law enforcement officials, and scientists throughout the country. The dangers of marijuana use have been exaggerated for almost a century and the modern scientific record does not support the reefer madness predictions of the past and present. Many claims of marijuana's danger are based on old 20th century prejudices that originated in a time when science was uncertain how marijuana produced its characteristic effects. Since the cannabinoid receptor system was discovered in the late 1980s these hysterical concerns about marijuana's dangerousness have not been confirmed with modern research. Everyone agrees that marijuana, or any other drug use such as alcohol or tobacco use, is not for children. Nonetheless, adults have demonstrated over the last several decades that marijuana can be used moderately without harmful impacts to the individual or society."
we shall express ourselves in a better way than this yes our government lied to us about many things but by legalizing marijuana we will in fact learn to understand them and also they will fear us because we are a strong nation as a government for the people by the people and by the legalization of marijuana this nation will be strong yet again.

oh and did i forget the medical uses well, no i didnt oh yeah medical marijuana is a good thing also many people can choose to stop the use of marijuana at any given time also it is a very good alternative if many people want to quit drinking.
and with that i know wait for any opponent to challenge this topic.
Danielle

Con

Hello fellow debaters. As DDO's most vocal advocate of legalizing marijuana, I decided to challenge my debating skills and argue the opposite in favor of criminalizing one of America's favorite past-times. As the instigator of this debate and the one in affirmation of the resolution, Pro has the burden of proving that the U.S. should legalize marijuana. If I can negate all of his arguments (and I will), then you have no reason to vote Pro. In addition, I'll conclude with some final arguments of my own. Thanks, Pro, for starting the debate and good luck!

-- Pro's Contentions --

1) We could tax marijuana and profit.
2) Legalizing pot would create jobs.
3) A lot of people would leave jail.
4) Pot makes people tranquil; that's how we'll establish peace.
5) Pot would only be for people 18+
6) Pot has medicinal uses.

-- Rebuttal --

In one fell swoop, I can most certainly negate my opponent's first two premises. Pro insists that the government and society would both profit off of legalizing marijuana because we could tax the product and create jobs for the people. Ladies and gentlemen, this is wishful thinking. Consider this: If marijuana plants were legal, would you go to the store to buy it, my friends? No. You would do what Pro suggested in R1 -- grow it in your right own backyard. Or, like most people, in warehouses or little hydroponic containers in your home. This would be faster, cheaper, easier and the overall most convenient and resourceful option on any cost-benefit analysis. Thus legalization would NOT lead to the creation of any new jobs, or bring in any new revenue to the government (who already taxes way too much, in my opinion).

This brings me to Pro's next argument. Pro insists that by decriminalizing marijuana, a lot of people would be released from jail. I've got two main arguments here. First, if you criminalize pot, many people will lose their jobs including cops, lawyers, DEA officers, etc. This brings me to my second point. If these people are all out of work, AND a whole bunch of people are released from jail therefore being expected to work, then where do you suggest these people find jobs? Nearly 10% of the population is unemployed at the moment which is one of the biggest detriments to the American economy. I've already proven how legalizing pot won't create jobs, so where do you expect these thousands of misplaced workers to go? The result would be an increase in taxes for the working people, and more people unemployed than ever. This is not only bad to the economy but society as a whole. When people don't have "real jobs," they resort to criminal activity to make money. This would make life unsafer, and for the offenders, their punishments more intense thus leading to their imprisonment and perhaps the ruining of their lives in a more disastrous way.

Pro's 4th point is that pot makes people tranquil, and as such it can help us establish world peace. Well, a bunch of Americans already smoke pot, and guess what -- there's not world peace. Again, this is wishful thinking on the part of Pro. We have war and unstable nations/relations in this world for deep reasons - hatred and greed - that even the fattest blunt or greenest bowl could not cure. Additionally, while pot is known to make people feel silly, sleepy and hungry, it's also just as known to make people apathetic, lazy and unproductive. Do we really need an increase of distracted drivers on the road or people being less productive than they already are? Just because people may not get caught or in trouble for their irresponsible behavior while high doesn't mean that the behavior itself wasn't wrong.

Next, Pro argues that pot should only be legal for people who are 18 and older. Right... the same way that nobody under 18 smokes cigarettes, and people under 21 don't drink. Ha! Pro and I both know that this law would NOT be enforceable; especially with people being able to grow it in their own home with ease. As such, we can assume that minors will be ingesting THC on a daily basis. Not only is this morally questionable, but it socially irresponsible as hell. We're trusted to encourage healthy habits for our children. And while there ARE medicinal uses for marijuana (I'll address that in a second), there are also known DANGERS of the drug as well.

So, on to Pro's final argument: Medicinal marijuana. As I said, though there are known medical uses for marijuana, there are also significant health risks. For instance, smoking pot is known to weaken people's immune system, increase the likelihood of mouth cancer (perhaps other kinds of cancer as well), accelerate some of the diseases it's trying to help, progresses the speed of HIV and AIDS faster, lead to an increase in schizophrenic patients, etc. So, it would seem that the dangers of marijuana cancel out the benefits of marijuana.

Plus, let's not ignore the reality that legalizing pot would undoubtedly feed into the obesity problem in the United States (haha pun intended). Not only does pot give you the munchies, but it also encourages the consumption of delicious snacks such as pot brownies or hash cookies. This obesity of course can lead to cardiovascular trouble and diabetes to name a few risks.

Finally, pot is illegal and yet marijuana still benefits people in a healthy way. Why? Those individuals have prescriptions. As such, this is a completely moot point on the part of Pro. Illegal pot still benefits those who are deemed to need it by doctors and psychologists. If people would like to self-medicate with pot, they can see a doctor and see if they meet the criteria, and move to a state that allows medicinal marijuana.

All of Pro's contentions have been dismantled; Back to my opponent for now :)
Debate Round No. 1
Darkmaff666

Pro

to try and go against my opponents arguments i will now try to attack the points he tried to bring down and strengthen them my main points were

1)by taxing marijuana we would profit from it.
2)Legalizing pot would create jobs
3)A lot of people would leave jail.
4)Pot makes people tranquil; that's how we'll establish peace.
5)Pot would only be for people 18+
6)Pot has medicinal uses.

my opponent has made a good argument and i intend on reinforcing my case by adding to my points
1,2,3) by taxing marijuana we would create more jobs look at the world and the possibilities like i said many would grow it in their backyards well that would be a good thing why..they would start their own business selling hemp products and also hemp would have to replace trees making our air cleaner and safer also law enforcer would not be kicked out of their jobs but make it easier for them. for one there would be less crime two) prison systems would be better with the real criminals in them.
also my opponent said that many of these people who were freed needed jobs well
now with more opportunity they will bc in R1 i stated how marijuana can be used for fuel efficiency, aswell as i have stated many products can be made from it, medicinal creams and aswell paper making jobs at many places in the U.S and he stated that 10% of the population is jobless well if law passes this we would indeed carry out more jobs and also we wont have to pay money to many off sea countries such as china europe etc.
so more of the money would stay here in the U.S as well we can see lawyers having an easier time dealing with many marijuana drug cases now and lawyers would never go out of the job there would be many more cases out there other than marijuana jeez.
also to attack how many workers will become lazy and incompetent that is a lie. in a work place there would have to be rules and the workers would have to obey them or else they will be fired. this being a good thing. there would be extents to smoking marijuana some places already ban smoking such a illinois, where almost every restaurant denies smoking. so then it would apply to marijuana smokers where as they would want to come to work high but wont be allowed to work, this is a law that any work place would abide by so then it would keep people at work at tip top shape.....

5)i never stated that 18+ would be the only to get it i stated teens.
so in reality buy having the chance to purchase marijuana many teens would actually have it out of their reach unless they get the seed which then they could grow themselves but we all know it takes 5-9 months to grow good bud so during that time period many teens and adults would have to go buy it from the local drug store or wherever marijuana will be sold.

6)as we all know marijuana has no side effects and many people would get used to the feeling after a long period of time.
unlike cigarettes people can quit smoking marijuana at any given time i have stated that before, and marijuana has no such link to cancer but has indeed helped many cancer patients. Marijuana cigarettes have been used to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and research has shown that THC is more quickly absorbed from marijuana smoke than from an oral preparation as stated in http://www.cancer.gov...

also to go against the obesity argument dude their is a worse enemy out there and its called anorexia. marijuana actually helps many of these anorexic beings and saves their lives by giving them the munchies. and many people will learn to control these cravings for "munchies" i would know, but also it would help them realize how fat they are and would actually help them out and tell these obese people "hey lose weight you fatass" sorry for the language but yes many people would realize it and stop smoking and start dieting.

i totally forgot point 4) well at the moment peace tranquility is only but a dream but many people had a dream and look what we have now a black president. may we say that a dream is far from reach...no because no dream is ever far from reach. with marijuana people would be tranquil happy and at peace none will be violent as i stated, law enforcers would have an easier job with marijuana legalized i mean cops have bigger matter to attend to than some dude thats been caught for having 3 ounces of pot on him, i mean there is always a drunk SOB out there that they would have to arrest so that means no law enforcer would lose a job PERIOD! and i affirm todays resolution bc i have attacked my opponent and strengthened my case aswell so you pot smokers of America unite and vote for moi.
Danielle

Con

Welcome to the site, Pro.

To clarify, I am a SHE, not a HE :)

Back to the arguments...

Pro begins by saying that pot will create jobs because people will start their own hemp businesses. This is an economically unsound argument. Again, since pot would be legal, and people would presumably grow their own to save money, then they're not going to buy it from other people either in the form of marijuana or hemp products. Additionally, you'll notice that Pro agreed that law enforcement and the like would lose their jobs. Pro contends this by saying "their job would be easier." Okay? They wouldn't have a job - that's the point.

Next Pro argues that people would have jobs as hemp and the like would be used as energy alternatives. The reality is that hemp is not ideal for these things. On the contrary, the increasingly popular solar power, wind power and of course hybrid options are more feasible, practical and effective. Therefore my opponent has been unable to uphold any of his points thus far or negate my own.

Moving on, Pro writes that I'm wrong in noting that people would do things like go to work high. I'd like to point out that I never said anything about going to work high. What I did say was that it's a FACT that just as pot is known to make people feel silly, giggly and sleepy, that it's also known to make people lazy, lethargic, apathetic, irresponsible and unproductive. Therefore Pro not only straw manned my argument, but also provided a moot point which is irrelevant. My argument was that these negative impacts DO affect smokers, which is not a contention in favor of legalization.

Pro then says something about those 18+ that I couldn't quite comprehend. I think he said that only those over 18 could legally buy it in the drug stores; however, I already said how young people would still be able to acquire it easier if it were legal, which could be considered irresponsible by law makers. Further, once again, people wouldn't have to buy it in the store -- they would grow it. Pro acknowledges that minors would grow it, therefore he concedes this argument to me.

Next Pro writes, "As we all know marijuana has no side effects..." That is a completely false statement. As I said in my last round, there are significant health risks including weakening people's immune system, increasing the likelihood of mouth cancer (perhaps other kinds of cancer as well), accelerating some of the diseases it's trying to help, progressing the speed of HIV and AIDS, lead to an increase in schizophrenic patients, etc [1]. You'll notice that Pro did not combat these valid points at all, and merely stated that there are no side effects. This is blatantly wrong. Pro continues to say that there are medicinal benefits to marijuana to which I have never disagreed. Instead, I argued that there are also significant risks which could be considered to cancel out any potential benefits.

Pro continues to point out that pot is beneficial because while it induces munchies, it's okay because marijuana can provide a cure for anorexia. Haha that's a ridiculous argument with no factual basis, so it should not be taken into consideration on the part of the Pro. And finally, you'll note that Pro failed to demonstrate how smoking pot would lead to world peace. As I said, just because pot makes some people lazy and tranquil doesn't mean that it would solve the world's problems or cure people's mental illness or thirst for power and greed, etc.

The resolution once again has been negated.

Reference:
[1] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Darkmaff666

Pro

just to clarify....i realized you were a she until after i posted my argument i didnt want to fix it bc i got lazy. and it was 3 am

mk now to continue the argument....
mk the law enforcers will have an easier job, yes i did state that, but, as you can plainly see i did state that they would have other jobs to attend to other than marijuana arrests duh
also to those who are of age over 18 yeah they would legally be able to get pot but still there would be a limit to the age law enforcers would still have to uphold a law, in the beggining of R1 i stated teens would be able to get marijuana but in reality we all are free to use it either for medical uses and such also its up to a parent to allow such a child to smoke it or grow it its a parents responsibility to take care of their young.
aswell if the bill in illinois passes there would be an age limit of course that would be 18 but, those under caught would be arrested thus actually leaving many jobs out there for these law enforcers, and besides my opponent knew this. i thus do not concede any argument at all bc as i have said many people would keep their jobs and parents would be greatly happy to know their son or daughter is happy too....*puff*

aswell we can note that my opponent states all these very nice economical things that will save energy and such well...such items will be god for our economy and will actually stimulate job growth if such jobs were to be created i mean, some states have no such things b/c our government does not try to help out its country, we can then plainly see that my opponent is just aswell rambling on about future dreams when she states all the economical things.

my opponent then states how people will be "lazy, lethargic, apathetic, irresponsible and unproductive" -con
well no as i have stated before and will keep stating, many people will get used to many of the symptoms and earn to repress them it just takes time.
also the risk of H.I.V or any type of disease like that would be better of left to protection of the main areas, (sex) many people tend to be careless and have unprotected sex, and we all know that its the person who does not use protection thats the idiot here its their fault for having aids NOT MARIJUANA!

i will now state again that world peace is a dream, and like many dreams they come true with a little effort and hard work, oh this is not in anyway helping the whole argument about the economical things my opponent stated but if those things were to be a truth to every state every inch of the world then yes that dream came true and i would admit..."yes, this world now is in a stabilized state" thus a good thing bc then there would be jobs and such etc.

oh adding to the hemp argument, yes people would grow their own stuff but hey like i said it takes time to grow, and many businesses would then open and sell many hemp items, and as my opponent states "they will become lazy" well if they do then they will go out to a store and buy the product instead of making it.

also to add to the medical area, as we all know why can we trust the medical doctors here in the United states they lie to you everyday watch the movie SICKO and you will all know the lies....if you have now you can watch the new Michael Moore film......anywho yes we all know that doctors in other countries agree marijuana is good.....many of the users of marijuana know that many things are added to marijuana but just the regular plant is of no harm.....if Amsterdam is smoking it and thats a little city with a higher life expectancy than the US look even in the movie sicko it was stated that the poorest person in europe has a higher life expectancy than the richest man in the US....and its all bc of the doctors! thank you and we shall all vote the affirmative
Danielle

Con

Here's a deconstruction of Pro's final arguments:

1. Law enforcement would still have jobs after decriminalization.

Yes, but since a significant potion of law enforcement (including local cops, the Feds and the DEA) goes into policing marijuana, so a lot of people would lose their jobs. Additionally, even if cops existed punish those younger than 18 who were smoking/growing, there are several problems with this. First, minors are punished as minors so this is no real big win for society, and in fact may hinder the personal growth and experience of that minor, not to mention ruin their reputation and credibility. Second, what is the point of the 18+ age limit anyway? It's imposed because we (society) feel that it protects the minor from making a decision we don't feel they have the maturity to make. Well, if pot were legal, it would so drastically increase the chances and likelihood of minors breaking that law that it's almost useless if not detrimental.

2. Parents would be happy to know their kids are happy too puff.

This is a statement with no factual basis or evidence to support it.

3. My opponent makes some incomprehensible argument about the government and economics...

I've already negated all of the economic arguments in previous rounds, and Pro has offered no new points in this regard.

4. People will learn to repress the effects of marijuana.

First of all, even the BIGGEST pot heads still sometimes become lazy, lethargic or apathetic after smoking, regardless of how much or how often they smoke. Believe me - I would know. It happens to the best of us from time to time. Plus, you cannot repress the physical harms of marijuana which I have cited, so Pro fails to provide a substantial argument.

5. My opponent makes some incomprehensible argument about world peace...

I've already negated all of the world peace arguments in previous rounds. Plus, what I think he was trying to say was that since there will be new jobs, there will be a stabilized economy and thus achieve world peace...? I know, it's completely non-sensical. But let's dismantle this point anyway. First, I've already said how there wouldn't be this sudden increase in new jobs. Second, nations with stabilized economies can still engage in war.

6. People will buy hemp because it takes time to grow.

That doesn't combat the idea that people can buy a plant that's already grown, and then never have to buy additional plants or worry about taking the time to grow them - especially hydroponic ones.

7. Pot is medicinally useful.

I never argued that; what I did was combat this point with the harms of marijuana. And, as I said - which Pro did not refute - people who benefit from medical marijuana already do legally, despite the drug being overall criminalized.

In conclusion, I am a huge marijuana enthusiast who is most definitely disappointed in the Pro for putting forth such shallow and easily refutable arguments. I have clearly diminished all of my opponent's points, and presented many arguments of my own which my opponent left unreconciled. For that reason, you should clearly be voting for CON despite mine and your own personal opinion on the matter. Debate isn't about what's right or wrong: it's about what you can prove. Pro failed so epically in his attempt to defend the legalization of marijuana that a vote for the affirmative would be a huge disservice and injustice to the field of debate.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Darkmaff666 7 years ago
Darkmaff666
really hmmmm i have to look it up too.....i was gonna take a road trip there last summer but didnt know if it was legalized.......thanks "theLwerd"
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
LEGALIZE IT! I heard that it's legal in California now...? Gotta look into that.
Posted by Darkmaff666 7 years ago
Darkmaff666
i agree with "theLwerd" i really never set a structured argument, and really didnt care about whether i won or lost but its for the fun of the debate. i do also agree with her because she did basically destroy my case from head to toe and i hardly did anything to defend it. If i was to get a second chance i would do a bit better. Also sources really arent needed, i just posted them because i got them from a direct source. My opponent and i both agree that this was still a fun debate.

Vote to legalize marijuana!! :)
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
The thing about sources is that I don't think they're necessary in a debate unless you're either quoting something specific, or taking information directly from a source. If you're using what you already know, I don't think they're necessary. This is supposed to be a debate - not a research paper. That said, thanks for the RFDs. I'm pretty positive I nailed this debate, so the vote bombing against me is really hilarious lol. I basically destroyed all of Pro's arguments and it was fun nonetheless :) He could have easily won this debate if he provided a few key arguments which he didn't, so.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"That sounds like something a rapist would say haha"

That got a chuckle and a head shake out of me :D
Posted by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
"You keep on responding, while saying please stop..."

That sounds like something a rapist would say haha
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
C: Tied. Both debaters were civil. Tranquil, even. This was a very "sedate" debate. :)

SP/G: CON. Wish this point were worth more at times like these. DM666, your spelling and punctuation is fairly bad, but putting your arguments into block text makes them even harder to read.

A: CON. Pro used leaps in logic, unverifiable claims, and many unsubstantiated statements. Pro had solid arguments (even under the influence :); still virtually unbacked by anything but her word, though.

Sources, people! Specific, relevant, trustworthy sources! None of the ones posted in this debate were both: a) unbiased, and b)specifically relevant to one of the arguments in the debate. The only exception was theLwerd's reference, and in the sentence she references it for, she lists several dangers of MJ. Only one of those was even mentioned by the article, however.

Tie on sources.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"ummm dude its over please just stop ugh....let me smoke in peace and besides this was just for fun...."...

Then why do you keep on responding?

You keep on responding, while saying please stop...
Posted by Darkmaff666 7 years ago
Darkmaff666
ummm dude its over please just stop ugh....let me smoke in peace and besides this was just for fun....
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"If all these cops lose their jobs, that would mean we would be taxed less. If we are taxed less, we could spend our money ELSEWHERE, thus creating jobs.."

my argument can be summed up like that..

But initially, I wanted to curse you out.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Darkmaff666 7 years ago
Darkmaff666
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
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 LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
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 Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
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 alwaz4dam 7 years ago
alwaz4dam
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by beamer1 7 years ago
beamer1
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
Darkmaff666DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70