Is Hilary Clinton a good leader?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
draxhunter
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 3/24/2014 | Category: | Society | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 792 times | Debate No: | 49835 | ||
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)
 Con  Pro Since you gave me only 5 minutes for each debate round, I will not have time for sources. What is your proof that Hillary Clinton lied to America? What are your sources? And why can you not focus on the enviorment and create jobs at the same time? |
 |
Post a Comment
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 7 years ago
| draxhunter | zkolodny | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a case, while Pro depended on the "Evidence of absence" fallacy rather than arguing his own.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 7 years ago
| draxhunter | zkolodny | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 2 |
Reasons for voting decision: These one round debates are always tougher to judge. I recommend having more rounds in the future. CON made some (unsubstantiated) arguments, which PRO pointed out. However, PRO did not raise any points of his own. CON made a few grammatical errors ("rather than create jobs and freed the poor"), so S&G go to PRO. Neither side used sources, though PRO explained why. Because PRO tried in that manner, I award PRO conduct as well.
Next time, try longer debates! It's good to see some back-and-forth.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 7 years ago
| draxhunter | zkolodny | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Bizarre debate. Pro should have paid attention to the terms of the debate before accepting. Con was the only one of the two debaters to provide an argument. Points Con.
