The Instigator
paramore102
Pro (for)
Tied
14 Points
The Contender
fo-shizzle
Con (against)
Tied
14 Points

"why technology is prudent despite the effect on enviroment"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 1/6/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,109 times Debate No: 6418
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

paramore102

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for taking me up on this debate, I wish him the best of luck.
I will let my opponent go first.
fo-shizzle

Con

Also i would like to thank my opponent paramore102 for offering the debate. This should be pretty fun. I think she meant to be the con, therefor we shall switch for this debate, me being pro, her being con. (due to previous discussion)

TECHNOLGY AND IT's BENEFITS

The benefits of technology in education were examined in a 1996 report to the nation on Technology and Education, "Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge", and the results were promising. Findings showed that there were numerous advantages including enhanced student achievement, advanced skills and problem solving opportunities, more comprehensive student assessment, increased student motivation, increased family involvement and instruction and experience in future job-related skills. Some other benefits cited were more individualized instruction and improved administration and management in schools. Learning should be interactive and involve problem solving, communication, and yes, development of new knowledge and products.

Despite the affect on the enviroment, human life is far more advanced to better increase your quality of life. With each new discovery, we have found benefitting qualites to improve our human race for the better. for example: Oil companies. Although they extract a heavy price from our enviroment, the benefits are fitting enough to see past that. 88% of american citizens you vehicles for our everyday life. And those of them who do not, use oil for other purposes that benefit themselves and there welfare.

With technology we provide our country with weapons to protect ourselves and our freedom despite the slight loss from the enviroment. We have used nature to benefit us for many different things, but none of it goes to waste, for we can only advance through technology rather than deduce living, because of the slight toll on the enviroment. without technology, most of us would find ourselves with proper homes, or jobs, and in poor living condition. The enviroment grants us many oppurtunitys, and to use them is not a crime. the true crime would be in letting to waste these great oppurtunity's and to live in utter tribal brutesqe through out life. We would not be the glorious nation we are today, without the technology we have. There for this makes technology more prudent then the slight toll on the enviroment it costs, and we are only progressing through life my using natures wonderful gift to us.
i look forward to your rebuttal, and thankyou very much for posting this debate.
thankyou.
-kudos
fo-shizzle
Debate Round No. 1
paramore102

Pro

I'm sorry for the mistake on the con and pro. I did mean to go con my apologies on that. I would like to thank my opponent fro taking me on this topic, and again I wish him the best of luck.

My opponent states that The benefits of technology in education were examined in a 1996 report to the nation on Technology and Education, "Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge", my understanding are that there is or must be a way that you could possible do that without the push on the world with global warming and so on.

In today's world, humans are in a very relaxed cycle. They eat, they watch television, they sleep. What most people do not realize are the health risks they are taking every day when they do their daily tasks. Humans are becoming more and more reliant on machines to do simple activities, such as changing the channel or traveling. I agree that technology does make activities uncomplicated, and genuinely makes life easier, and that findings showed that there were numerous advantages including enhanced student achievement, advanced skills and problem solving opportunities, more comprehensive student assessment, increased student motivation, increased family involvement and instruction and experience in future job-related skills,but how can a person stay physically fit and healthy when he/she does nothing himself/herself? In Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, many environmental issues are discussed. Among the issues, Quinn talks about technology and how humans believe it to be a turning point in society, but will eventually lead to the downfall of humans.
People are at great risk to their health with the advancements in technology. Not only have individuals fabricated new ways of entertainment, but have built factories, which pollute the air they breathe and water they drink. In Ishmael, Quinn tells of man trying to fly; when man fails, he does not just simply give up and wait to fly, but creates a new way, that is not fool-proof. Humans will do anything to make life easier, but for no reason than to make life easy.

My opponent states that 88% of American citizens you vehicles for our everyday life. And those of them who do not, use oil for other purposes that benefit themselves and there welfare, but methods of transportation have always occupied a certain niche in society. Beyond their obvious practical use, transports from horses to speed boats to sports cars embody the romance and intrigue of travel. However, beyond the obvious effect low fuel-efficiency standards have had on pollution in the United States and elsewhere, the environmental impacts of transportation are rarely taken into account. Advances in transportation have had two main effects on the environment. Technological advances in transportation are some of the direct reasons behind particulate emissions, global warming and other pollution problems of the industrial age. In addition, transportation has neutralized barriers to diffusion across the world, ensuring the spread of innovation, technology and disease around the world.

As transportation has become more mechanized, and as we have increased our use of fossil fuels to support that mechanization, its effects on the environment have become clear. As Al Gore pointed out, and as George W. harped on, he believes that the internal combustion engine was the worst invention humans ever made. From an environmental standpoint, he has something of a point, albeit a rather misguided one. As of yet advances of transportation have had the side effect of large amounts of pollution. I say side effects not to degrade the seriousness of the pollution that we spew out daily, but simply because I doubt very seriously whether engineers planned or were in any way aware of the possible implications their inventions would have. However that does not mitigate the damage their creations have caused. Shipbuilding in the middle ages led to the deforestation of massive amounts of Europe, Britain, and parts of the U.S. Cars, trucks and even jet skis inject massive amounts of pollution into our atmosphere. Although I admit the possibilities of this are no doubt astronomically slim, depending on the number of James Bond movies one watches, nuclear powered military transportation carries along with it the potential for not only mass destruction but mass degradation of humans and their environments as well. I point these examples out not too suggest backtracking in our methods of transportation. Reverting to less advanced methods of transportation cannot and will not solve our problems, nor is it even a viable option. Increases in efficient, reusable energy sources and methods of transportation is the key to a step forward where we can mitigate the damage our own expansion has caused.

I would like to thank my opponent for his post I'm excited to say that this will be a fun debate.
fo-shizzle

Con

thankyou paramore that was a wonderful reply.

now to begin-

EDUCATION/TECHNOLOGY
first i would like to re-state how technology and education has benefitted our country overly so. Children every day are getting smarter and smarter at younger ages. This is due to ou increased technology advancements. Most technology in school, however, do not take tolls upon the enviroment. 'Global warming' is indeed an unproven theory. Even so, it has no effect with student education at younger ages.

My opponent seems to think that technology has not only taken a heavy toll on enviroment, but on our own citizens as well. I, presented with certain facts, dis-agree with this. Technology indeed does help the cause of benefitting things such as america weight problem and such. However technology also provides ways out of this. We have exercise machines, health foods, dietary substance, and all forms of ways to stay healthy and fit. They are just as easily obtainable as getting weight problems. However due to humans in our society's obligation, it is thouroughly lacking thereof.

Technology cannot be blamed for something, someone has rightfully chosen by their own will. Although people can use vehicles to travel with, technology is just providing for them, the best benefits for traveling distances in the shortest time possible in order to get some one somewhere quickly. This shouldn't suggest that, because of technology, are downfall to weight and laziness re achieved. television also, i will have to state, is not a breaking cause. most american citizens have stressful jobs which they return from every day, tired and deperessed. T.V can be an escaoe to people and help them to forget their problems. T.V. also offers many educational channels for people to watch and learn from such as discovery channel.

TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIROMENT
My opponents main argument on this point is the effects from carbon-deoxhide released from fuel emmisions, hurts our enviroment. Our atmosphere has a sort of 'Filter'. When we release gases and hurtful substances, this filter acts as a recycling unit. These gases our re-used and submit into the earth. however this filter doesn't always work rght, and some escape to weaken the atmosphere, thus the theory of global warming. If global warming is going to happen i would first like to tell that 'global warming' is not 100% human related.

Although we have hurt the atmosphere, The main cause is the submission of the polar ice caps. This has happened in the past where as everything on earth is destroyed. However over time, the ice caps regrow to fit the sides of the earth, as is now. There is no evidence that we are the direct cause to global warming, though it is obvious that we attribute a small part to it. Also nature submits its cause to global warming, when things such as volcanic eruptions produce mass carbon dioxide, that is 50x's worse than what we produce from our vehicles.

Without vehicles, we would be presented many problems. for example: You have a child who is very ill, and on the verge of death. The doctors in your area do not have the proper equipment to treat this poor child. However there is a dactor with the proper equipment who lives a copious distance from your home. Are you going to walk across this distance, or ride a horse, just to help the atmoshpere out a little? To say that Vehicles are bad, and to continue to use them (as i am sure you do) would be hypocritical.

in my opponents last argument she states "Increases in efficient, reusable energy sources and methods of transportation is the key to a step forward where we can mitigate the damage our own expansion has caused."
This indeed true and supports my case. for technology is what provides these re-usable energy sources we use. Therefor this shows another reason technology can help enviroment. And don't forget what technology does for farming. We use technology in growing and planting, as well as other things that benefit enviroment. To say this is dangerous would be undermining technology.

RANDOM ARGUMENT REBUTTAL

You say that you doubt that the inventors who have dealt harm on the enviroment had no intention of doing so. I am sure the knew exactly what the consequences would be (however minor) but only invent for the production of our society, not the degredation. If that were so the EPA would never have allowed this one a pass.
Although nuclear content does great deal of damage on the enviroment, they are nessicary. We don't go out and use nuclear explosive for the sole purpose of harm to the enviroment. We use them for our protection, and the protection of others. The results to the enviroment may be drastic, however, but there is nothing we can do about it when our nation's security is at risk.

With this being said, i conclude that technology is far more prudent to americas progression, rather than the degredation of our great country. I urge you to vote pro.

thankyou
-kudos
fo-shizzle
Debate Round No. 2
paramore102

Pro

I would like to thank my opponet for the responce.

Nevertheless I do agree with my opponet and I would like to quote him... "Children every day are getting smarter and smarter at younger ages. This is due to ou increased technology advancements. Most technology in school, however, do not take tolls upon the enviroment. 'Global warming' is indeed an unproven theory. Even so, it has no effect with student education at younger ages." that is true although there has been a strong push to get educational technology into the hands of teachers and students, many obstacles to implementation still exist. Equipment may not be placed in easily accessible locations. Hardware and software often pose problems for teachers in the classroom, and just-in-time technical support may be unavailable. Teachers may lack the time and the motivation to learn technology skills. Professional development activities may not provide ongoing, hands-on training for teachers or practical strategies for implementing technology into lesson plans. Initial technology funding may not be sustained and thus not capable of providing upgrades, maintenance, and ongoing professional development. Fortunately, these obstacles can be addressed and overcome. This Critical Issue provides practical information for promoting technology use in schools.

The push to provide technology in schools has been successful in recent years. According to Goldman, Cole, and Syer most schools have computer labs and many have computers in every classroom. More than 90 percent of all schools are connected to the Internet, and more than 33 percent of teachers have Internet access in their classrooms. Yet teachers readily admit that they are not making as much use of technology as they could. According to an Education Week survey, nearly 30 percent of teachers said their students use computers only one hour per week; nearly 40 percent said their students do not use computers in the classroom at all. Although technology is more prevalent in the schools, several factors affect whether and how it is used. Those factors include placement of computers for equitable access, technical support, effective goals for technology use, new roles for teachers, time for ongoing professional development, appropriate coaching of teachers at different skill levels, teacher incentives for use, availability of educational software, and sustained funding for technology.

What my opponet dosent know is that there is also bad that tecnology dose on the enviroment.did you know that there's been a lot of hand-wringing lately about how much air traffic contributes to global warming. But another damaging culprit has recently been found: the Internet. Computer centers consume massive amounts of energy, and their use is growing astronomically.

While computerized devices continue to shrink, the auxiliary machinery surrounding them is constantly growing. The Leibniz Computer Center, which opened only two years ago, is already too small. The next computer will contain about 100,000 processors compared with the current incarnation's 9,728 in the same amount of space. But electricity and cooling requirements, as well as the need to supply and extract energy, will increase so substantially that the computer center will have to expand. The current cube-like structure will be transformed into an elongated rectangular block, floor space will increase by half, and power requirements will rise from two to almost eight megawatts. This change is not limited to the exclusive world of supercomputers. In fact, it is far more significant among ordinary PCs, as their numbers are growing so rapidly. The Internet, in particular, is responsible for consuming a growing proportion of global power production. The computer centers of network operators often contain thousands of PCs used as servers. According to surveys conducted by the market research firm IDC, between 2000 and 2005, the power consumption of network computers doubled worldwide. PCs, which are derided in professional circles as "heat blowers," can hardly be operated in an energy-saving manner, partly because it is impossible to utilize thousands of individual computers in a computer center at the same level. In fact, most of them are chronically underutilized.

i would like to add more but at the momment im at skwl and taking finals...........

would like to wish my opponet good luck
fo-shizzle

Con

ok lets begin

SCHOOLS
first off
My opponent - "Equipment may not be placed in easily accessible locations. Hardware and software often pose problems for teachers in the classroom, and just-in-time technical support may be unavailable. Teachers may lack the time and the motivation to learn technology skills."

Acessing equipment in this case is not of problem. in this technology provides, ways to easily transport equipment. And as far as teacher's knowing the stuff, they pose classes where the teachers learn this. And as far as time and motivation go, I am sure their next paycheck, would be plenty of motivation, don't you? I'ts part of their job. Dealing with technology is not all that hard anyway. it is made to be easy and make your life easier. As far as schooling goes, problems are a minor issue.

In my opponents second paragraph, she tells me how technology is beneficial in schools, but is not used to its full extent. The rest of the paragraph supports this. But i fail to see the the arguing factor here. Just because it is not used nearly enough (according to my opponent) means it shouldn't be used? To argue that however, schools everywhere, do use conmputer technology often. More than 33% teachers use internet access despite what my opponent has said. Could you please state the source in which you got this information? However, again despite stastistics, i do not see how students not using technology at full extent hurts anything.

MY OPPONENT- "What my opponet dosent know is that there is also bad that tecnology dose on the enviroment.did you know that there's been a lot of hand-wringing lately about how much air traffic contributes to global warming. But another damaging culprit has recently been found: the Internet. Computer centers consume massive amounts of energy, and their use is growing astronomically."

Um, no offence, but again global warming=theory. Unless you can prove that Al Gore wasn't scamming the public for money, (He made Billions of dollars btw) and into being afraid of something that no one can get rid of, even without technology, please do so. If you can do so, then your the only person in the world who can. If you can do that i will instantly give up this debate right now and praise you forever. But alas, not possible. Global warming cannot provide these answers. true, are atmosphere is slowly decreasing, but if you have learned in this spot on earth history, you would know that this has happened many time before.

The atmoshpere Goes down, the polar ice caps go off balance, then re-build on either sides of the earth. Even as we speak, our polar ice caps our melting. Of course i will be billions of years before the big melt down, but still, it has happened in the past. And Did you ever hear of teh global freezing theory? It was a big deal in the 1930's. But that whole thing was proved wrong. Theory's don't get us anywhere.
I appolagize it seems we have gotten off hand into a global warming debate instead of a technolgy v.s. enviroment one.

just out of curiosity this stuff looks like it is copy/pasted? just wondering...

my opponents last paragraph, says that internet takes up alot of energy. i understand that. i have from the beginning. but i thought the point of this debate was for you to tell me how the enviroment was more important than technology, and why this technology is less prudent than the enviroment.

a few more things i would like to point out for my own entertainment, as well as any others who may be reading this. my opponent recently in a text conversation, informed me that she herself attends a technology schools. I find this pretty interesting. If technology in schools is worse than it is better, that would imply that my opponent is of a lesser education. would you not agree? no offence intended of course, just pointing out a few stray un-answered details.

thankyou for all your participation in this debate

farewell for now
fo-shizzle
Debate Round No. 3
paramore102

Pro

Well I have to admit that I had fun while doing this debate, and hope to someday see my self debating with fo-shizzle.

As you all know school is a big part of your life right? It's a way to focus on your future; As my opponent states I did recently in a text conversation, did informed my opponent that I attended a technology school. How ever I didn't tell my opponent if I take the technology classes.

The reason that out school decided to move to an all technology base program was only done because, of the recent affects that this may have in us in the future. However this isn't the way for all of the students in my school. Our schools main point is "project base learning"; they believe that they use in technology and working in a group will be a better benefit in the future. The class of 2011 was the first to enter Rochester High, but with a twist the use in technology and the pressure to work in groups that wasn't the only thing that our had to work with but our teaches where also inexperienced in what they were doing many of the teachers didn't know what to do as project and how to use the technology (there was a time when the student showed the class how to use the program rather then the teacher). They believed that a student is more into the modern technology and the wanted to incorporate that to make class a little more interesting. I must admit that it worked for the first year. I am one of the students that attends the school I am also proud to say that this is my second year in Zebra New Tech High. I am an ambassador for my school I tell the pros and cons about this and what good it has done to me to other representatives that attend our school to see if it has made a good impact to not just our school but as well as to our community. You see, through the problem doesn't seem to be the technology but way that it is taught. For a project we recently has to make a list of things that this has done for us I would like to share what my group and I came to find out; the two main things would be:
* Students usually learn more in less time when they receive computer-based instruction.
* Students like their classes more and develop more positive attitudes toward computers when their classes include computer-based instruction.

So its understanding that the student learns more, but how is the student graded?
Well you have skills that you are graded by you are no longer graded on what use to be normal work sheets. The fallowing is what you would find at a modern technology high school report card.
Critical thinking
Written communication
Oral communication
Collaboration
Work ethic
Citizenship and ethics
Career and College prep
Technology literacy

The way that the students are graded is should be re-evaluated, You can't grade a student on collaboration for example I have been in a group that did nothing they did collaborate but not with their group with other making then a distraction, I however was in my set working on my so called group project but still received a low collaboration grade because It was assumed that I didn't work with my group yet I did the work and they got the credit for it but they received a higher collaboration grade, even though they were a distraction to other students in the room. A collaboration grade is determined by the amount of time that you spend within your group.

Theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

I will admit that I have no prove on global warming, how ever what you hear on the news or see on an ad makes a good point we know that global warming is out there but we do nothing to prevent it. Al Gore is making billions to get word out that global warming dose exists. He is some ways is taking action for this to inform us that there is global warming, and that there is ways to prevent this by changing the ways that we use anything that may or is making an effect on their environment. I would like to let my opponent know that in order to make a statement such as the one that it may just need to take someone that people know of have made in some way a better influence to people or maybe it just takes someone with determination. If I was well know like some one like Al Gore and I knew that people listen to my word why would I hide back when I could make a difference.

I would like to Thank fo- shizzle once more this has been an interesting debate.
fo-shizzle

Con

Thankyou for being an honorable debat buddy. good luck to you with the votes. :)

MY OPPONENT- "As you all know school is a big part of your life right? It's a way to focus on your future"

Yes it surely is. one thing i was trying to point out to you for the duration of this debate.

MY OPPONENT- "The reason that out school decided to move to an all technology base program was only done because, of the recent affects that this may have in us in the future. However this isn't the way for all of the students in my school. Our schools main point is "project base learning"; they believe that they use in technology and working in a group will be a better benefit in the future. The class of 2011 was the first to enter Rochester High, but with a twist the use in technology and the pressure to work in groups that wasn't the only thing that our had to work with but our teaches where also inexperienced in what they were doing many of the teachers didn't know what to do as project and how to use the technology (there was a time when the student showed the class how to use the program rather then the teacher). They believed that a student is more into the modern technology and the wanted to incorporate that to make class a little more interesting. I must admit that it worked."

Not only does my opponent help further my side with this, but she also goes on to admit that it has worked.

my opponent then goes on to say

MY OPPONENT- "You see, though the problem doesn't seem to be the technology but way that it is taught"

again thankyou for helping my case. You see? no problem in technology, just those who teach it at her high school. This
also pertains to her example with the unruly group of kids.

MY OPPONENT- "I will admit that I have no prove on global warming, how ever what you hear on the news or see on an ad makes a good point we know that global warming is out there but we do nothing to prevent it"

dear paramore102, are you claiming that the media now presents fact? Just because you hear something on the news does not make it true. especially in this new era of time. No, the media is biased. However this seems to be the problem with America. We seem to think everything we hear on television is true. pity.

MY OPPONENT-"Al Gore is making billions to get word out that global warming dose exists"

EXACTLY my point. How can you not see this? that one man's selfishness can turn the whole beliefs?

MY OPPONENT-"I would like to let my opponent know that in order to make a statement such as the one that it may just need to take someone that people know of have made in some way a better influence to people or maybe it just takes someone with determination."

Actually this is not the case. Any one with enough money can make such statements. and the problem is, that we americans are gullible enough to fall for anything. We have a negitive way of thinking. We like to look at all the problems in the world rather than whats being done for the world.

Now that i have finished attacking my opponents case, i would like to point out all my
dropped points.

ME- "The atmoshpere Goes down, the polar ice caps go off balance, then re-build on either sides of the earth. Even as we speak, our polar ice caps our melting. Of course i will be billions of years before the big melt down, but still, it has happened in the past. And Did you ever hear of teh global freezing theory? It was a big deal in the 1930's. But that whole thing was proved wrong. Theory's don't get us anywhere."

My opponent has dropped this point, meaning that it still holds undenyable cause for my case.

ME-"my opponents last paragraph, says that internet takes up alot of energy. i understand that. i have from the beginning. but i thought the point of this debate was for you to tell me how the enviroment was more important than technology, and why this technology is less prudent than the enviroment."

My opponent also refuses to show me how technology is less prudent than the enviroment in any way. She has basically only told me that its bad on the enviroment, and that there's trouble with it in school. Given these are the only things pointed out and that my opponent has failed to show me how enviroment is more prudent than technology, i urge any readers to vote for my cause.

Thank you for a fun and easy debate, paramore102.
kudos
fo-shizzle
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
thankyou dgray. If your looking for a debate i'd be more than glad to accept around these topic lines
Posted by dgray 8 years ago
dgray
Interesting topic, not one that would come up in usual conversation circles. I enjoyed it quite alot, ties across the board, i'd like to see more along these lines on the site
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
sorry about what??
Posted by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
really sorry about that too......i told fo-shizzle i was bad
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
sorry for the confusion. My goal in this was that technology is needed despite is effect on the enviroment. Hers was to tell me that the enviroment was more important
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
I am Confused on Burdens in this topic as each side essentially argued different Resolutions(they were VERY similar but not the same) Paramore essentially eliminated all technology that did not hurt the environment and fo-shizzle argued all technology... (or at least this was my impression)
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Agree With B4 - Con
Agree With After - Con
Conduct - Tie
Spelling/Grammar - Tie
Convincing Arguments - Con
Sources - Tie
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
oh and can you make more rounds? ha ha two rounds i don't think is enough. but its up to you ;)
0)
Posted by fo-shizzle 8 years ago
fo-shizzle
Hmm.. before i accept, can you change the topic to "why technology is prudent despite the effect on enviroment" or something along those lines? other wise it would be just a one-way debate
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
paramore102fo-shizzleTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
paramore102fo-shizzleTied
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 paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
paramore102fo-shizzleTied
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 dgray 8 years ago
dgray
paramore102fo-shizzleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
paramore102fo-shizzleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03