> >Does technology make our lives better.
Big Issues
The Instigator
The Contender
Con (against)
Does technology make our lives better.
Do you like this debate?+5
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style:
Point System:
7 years ago
82,140 times
Debate No:
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (14)
I am inclined to favor the idea that technology does enrich our lives.
It provides us with a huge quantity of information and entertainment. For example, if you search something in the internet, you will see tons of information about it, and some of that you could not find otherwise. Even though our modern technology provides us with these sorts of amazing services, pessimists have a different perspective. Pessimists point out that technology is destroying our relationships and creating security threats, but can they state that technology affects our lives in a negative way just because it sometimes causes problems in our communities? No. All things and choices have some unpleasant consequences, and we just have to bear them.
Also, they should consider about how technology can be very useful in weather forecasting, medical treatment, warfare, and etc….
I believe that while technology can be useful and convenient it does not make our lives better, and is threatening to our society which ultimately impacts all of our lives.
I will sum up my argument in three points:
I. An addiction to technology
II. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
III. The harms of technology
To set a framework for this debate, if the con can prove that on a scale technology does equal to or as much damage as it does good in our lives then the con wins this debate.
I. An addiction to technology
Our society has become addicted to technology, and now we rely on it more than ever. Before this decade it would have been absurd to see a teenager with a cell phone, and now elementary schools are having to ban them. We have become so adapted to this technology that losing your cell phone or not having internet service for more than a couple of days becomes a crises. Could Y2k have been a serious threat thirty years ago? No. We didn't rely on computers to support our lives.
II. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
Just because we didn't have as much technology in the past does not mean that the quality of life was worse. I'm sure the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow would back me up on this fact.
This is Maslow's Hierarchy of needs (from bottom of the pyramid to the top):
Physiological Needs (food water and etc.)
Safety Needs (need to feel safe)
Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness
When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge. Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation.
Needs for Esteem
When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect.
Needs for Self-Actualization
When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need to be and do that which the person was "born to do."
Nowhere in Maslows Hierarchy of needs does it say that we need technology to live a happy and fulfilled life. Our lives being "better" as stated in the resolution rely on physiolgical needs, saftey needs, needs of love and acceptance, needs for esteem, and needs for self actualization. Technology cannot provide for any of these needs and is actually damaging to several of them. For example, technology takes away from our ability to socialize from person to person making it more difficult to be accepted in social settings. It has become more convient for us to communicate through texting and our relationships with people and our ability to communicate have diminished because of it, harming our need of esteem, and our need of love and acceptance, and if we cant fulfill those needs then we cant fulfill our need for self-actualization.
III. The harms of technology
Now days, we face serious threats such as cyber terrorists, viruses, and online predators, not to mention problems it has created with our personal relationships. Now, don't get me wrong, i am not saying that technology is always bad, but there is a such thing as too much of a good thing, and when you have become addicted to something it is too much. Technology may help for educational purposes and for convenience, but it has also created many problems in society. When was the last time you saw the streets filled with people going on walks, flying kites, and just playing outside. Now we would rather stay indoors and debate about it on the internet.
In conclusion, I negate this resolution because we have become addicted to technology, it is not a necessity to our fulfillment and happiness in life, and it does more damage than it does good.
Please vote CON.
deal with Maslow later.
Because you came up with decent topics, I will defend my side with mine.
Let's see..
Although disadvantages such as disappointment(addiction and so on..) and over-reliance on technology are real, technology can save us when it comes to weather prediction.
How should I say this..
You know that far, far above our heads, weather satellites are working their asses off to track storms and inform meteorologists so that they could predict their magnitude in advance. The satellites estimate and tell weather experts the storms' strength and how dangerous it is. When a gigantic storm is on its way to consume lives, weather satellites can notify weather experts, defending the people with the shield of modern technology.
Hurricanes are extremely destructive, and can cause serious damages. We can not avoid having them, but we can get away from it. what do this job of making people capable of running away from it? The weather satellites are doing that, which are one of the most notable feats that modern technology has achieved.
Certainly, in this issue, the positive outweigh the negative.
2.medical treatment.
Let me, in this paragraph, use cancer as my key word.
Cancer is the type of disease that gets its job done. It kills its victims almost certainly, and a diagnosis of cancer is practically a death sentence. This terrifying disease is composed of these vicious cells that grow and divide beyond the normal limits, making cancer incurable. People, even when hospitals were not equipped with decent medical devices, were cured from some diseases, but they, nine times out of ten, died when cancer got in their way. Although cancer is known as an incurable disease, there are some cases of people surviving it. The notable thing is that most of these people are cured in present days, in which technology for medical treatments such as MRI and oxygen inhaler have developed a lot. This hints that technology has taken a big part of making this happy situation possible.
3. A=B We value convenience.
B=C Technology gives us convenience.
A=C Thus, technology is valuable.
Because people are naturally lazy and value efficiency and convenience, technology has become of great practical value. If you use anything that requires the power of electricity in order to work, you are using what modern technology has achieved. When we did not have any proper modern conveniences-internet, computers, automobiles, and iPods- people used to bear the discomforts. They could not travel far and fast since there was no technology to build cars, trains or planes. They often were not capable of storing food well enough for winter so they died of hunger. In the present day, we get to the other side of the earth in less than 24hours, and can buy any sorts of food in any season. One of the most notable and significant feats that modern technology has achieved is computers. Computers are very useful. People with handicaps can use specially made computers to communicate with people and study. Computers are not just used by humans, but are frequently used by machines to function. Cars, robots and a lot of other high-tech devices have computers installed in them. Without computers, they will be just useless chunk of metals. When we talk about computers, internet takes a huge part of it. Not only does internet allow us the access to tons of information, it also helps us to communicate with our families that are far away. For example, you can e-mail your relatives, and have them answered in an absurdly shot time. Technologies can be very helpful if put together well. Like this, technology has supported our lives and lead us to the new world full of comfort by accomplishing amazing feats.
4. Just as we value convenience, so we value security, and technology has helped us here, too.
. The advancements in making weaponries have come a long way. First, our ancestors created weapons such as swords and spears, and other primeval weapons, and as time elapsed, deadly weapons like guns and cannons began to appear on the surface of Earth. As our technology got even better, weapons became much stronger and it came down to what we have now, Atomic weaponries. Of course developing atomic weaponries can have fatal consequences all over the nation, but such cases are rare. Although it can be dangerous, it will enrich our lives if masterfully handled, making it possible to put a dead stop to wars and other threats.
As mentioned earlier, everything has negative effects on us if you look from a critical point of view. If looked from a point of view like that, even believing in God can affect our lives in a negative way. For example, you have to give up your precious time that you could use to study or work to pray and celebrate the special days such as Christmas. Another instance would be attending school and studying since you will be missing the freedom you could have if you did not attend school. Like this, we have to understand that we have to bear some negative factors. Yes, problems come with everything, including technology. However, these problems are of lesser weight than the rewards, and we can even see them as positive because they challenge society to protect our values. For instance, 911 terror produced major damages to America, but now that Americans know that it could happen again, they build buildings better, and they strengthen the counter terrorist force, resulting in safer lives for Americans.
Technologies have done considerable harm in our lives, but they enrich our lives, and are definitely required for better lives of safety, health, and convenience. Life without technology is like a bicycle with only one pedal. It may work, but not well.
For the second round I will first extend my framework that was not refuted and states "if the con can prove that on a scale technology does equal to or more damage as it does good in our lives then the con wins this debate." Then I will go on to attack the pro's points, and then support my own arguments.
Before I start I also think that it would be best for us to put a time boundary on this debate. Since the resolution is in present tense, I believe it is fair for us to assume that the debate is on modern day technology in the status quo. Meaning that we must discuss recent technology because everything dating from the creation of the wheel could count as technology.
Pro point I. Technology helps with weather predictions
Not to say that weather predictions aren't useful, and demonstrates one of the good sides of technology, but my opponent makes it seem like weather prediction is the biggest thing since the creation of the cotton gin. In actuality, because there is such a broad range of technology, this argument is too narrow to be significant, and my opponent almost states the insignificance of his own first point with his opening statement.
"Although disadvantages such as disappointment (addiction and so on..) and over-reliance on technology are real, technology can save us when it comes to weather prediction."
He compares our society committing social suicide through our addiction and adaptation to technology, to how technology helps us with predicting the weather. Even though I find this point to be relatively insignificant to the inherent dangers of technology I will attack it anyway.
"Hurricanes are extremely destructive, and can cause serious damages. We can not avoid having them, but we can get away from it."
While technology is useful for weather predictions there is not much that can be done to prevent the serious damage that you talk about. For example it is costing us 81 billion to fix the damages caused by the Hurricane Katrina. And until you can site a source or in some way prove that there is a significant number of people that weather predictions have saved (relatively to how many people technology harms and kills) then I think that your point falls.
And I would like to point out that with Hurricane Katrina it was technology that made the hurricane so disastrous. "According to new modeling and field observations by a team from Louisiana State University, the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), a 200-meter (660 ft) wide canal designed to provide a shortcut from New Orleans to the Gulf of Mexico, helped provide a funnel for the storm surge, making it 20% higher and 100%-200% faster as it crashed into the city."
If it weren't for this levee system, damage would have been less severe and lives would have been saved.
Pro point II. Medical treatment
I would like to start my rebuttal against this argument by stating this fact. Obesity caused by "a poor diet and physical inactivity, is the second leading cause of death in the U.S. right behind smoking. This can be largely attributed to our adaptation to technology. We hardly have to leave our houses anymore. People can even shop for groceries online now.
Half the reason we need medical technology is because of what technology has caused us to become. Obesity is the perfect example.
"Obesity is closing in on smoking as the number one cause of death in the US as Americans continue to pack on the pounds… But illnesses related to weight problems are catching up fast. A poor diet and physical inactivity accounted for 400,000 deaths in 2000, some 16.6% of the total. That figure was one-third higher than in 1990."
While medical advancements and technology does save lives it is a double edged sword just like with most technological advances.
With the creation of life saving medicine comes the ability to abuse medicine and become addicted to it. For example, Anti-biodics can save someone's life but the more anti-biodics you take the less anti-bodies your body produces because it adapts to the anti-biodics your body is taking in. Then due to your lack of anti-bodies, you are more capable of becoming ill and needing more anti-biodics and the death spiral continues until you completely rely on the drugs to keep you alive.
"Unintentional fatal drug overdoses nearly doubled from 1999 to 2004 and were the second leading cause of accidental death in the United States in 2004, behind only automobile crashes, according to the Centers for Disease Control."
While cancer is the 3rd leading cause of death in America. My opponent says it himself when he says:
"People, even when hospitals were not equipped with decent medical devices, were cured from some diseases, but they, nine times out of ten, died when cancer got in their way."
My opponent stresses cancer for some reason but the fact is that technology can only save 9 out of 10 of these victims.
Because medical technology is like a double edged sword it cannot outweigh the harms of technology that I will address later on.
Pro point III.
A=B We value convenience.
B=C Technology gives us convenience.
A=C Thus, technology is valuable.
Yes convenience is valuable, but how can you miss something that you've never had? I'm sure people in the seventies weren't depressed because they couldn't have ipods, and therefore the quality of life for them was not effected by technology because the technology they were missing out on didn't exist.
At this point I would like to cross-apply my second point "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs." Or the things we need to live a happy and fulfilling life.
Once again technology is not what makes the quality of our lives better. It is the fulfillment of physiological, safety, acceptance, esteem, and self-actualization needs that makes the quality of our lives better. If anything, technology harms our ability to fulfill these needs.
I will start with safety. Nothing is safe anymore, "don't talk to strangers" never used to be a rule that parents gave to their children. Now parents have to be constantly concerned about online predators kidnapping and raping their children. Technology has magnified safety concerns. War used to be men marching with guns and face to face battles, now it consists of threats to blow full nations off the face of the earth, killing innocent civilians everywhere. The more technology that is created the easier it is to destroy a life.
Next is acceptance, it's difficult to be accepted in a social setting if you never leave the house and learn social skills. Kids used to play outside, now obesity rates are souring, and people have more text and IM conversations than face to face or even over the phone conversations.
Next is esteem, you cant have a strong self esteem if you don't feel accepted, and cant form normal relationships.
Lastly self actualization is damaged by technology because we no longer need to do anything. Having the feeling of being born to accomplish something doesn't exist in the minds of people these days. It's all routine, we do everything over the computer and take whatever we can get while putting in the least amount of effort possible.
I would attack my opponents fourth point "security is valued" but I already did when I defended the need of safety in my rebuttal to his third point.
Now to briefly support my own points:
I. an addiction to technology
An addiction to anything is not good. In a world where obesity is the second biggest killer behind smoking, and when the world could end if our computers stop working, there is too much reliance on technology, and it has created more problems than it is able to fix.
OUT OF ROOM
"this argument is too narrow to be significant,"
A weather satellite is a type of satellite that is primarily used to monitor the weather and climate of the Earth. Satellites can be either polar orbiting, seeing the same swath of the Earth every 12 hours, or geostationary, hovering over the same spot on Earth by orbiting over the equator while moving at the speed of the Earth's rotation.[1] These meteorological satellites, however, see more than clouds and cloud systems. City lights, fires, effects of pollution, auroras, sand and dust storms, snow cover, ice mapping, boundaries of ocean currents, energy flows, etc., are other types of environmental information collected using weather satellites.
Weather satellite images helped in monitoring the volcanic ash cloud from Mount St. Helens and activity from other volcanoes such as Mount Etna.[2] Smoke from fires in the western United States such as Colorado and Utah have also been monitored.
Other environmental satellites can detect changes in the Earth's vegetation, sea state, ocean color, and ice fields. For example, the 2002 oil spill off the northwest coast of Spain was watched carefully by the European ENVISAT, which, though not a weather satellite, flies an instrument (ASAR) which can see changes in the sea surface.
El Ni?o and its effects on weather are monitored daily from satellite images. The Antarctic ozone hole is mapped from weather satellite data. Collectively, weather satellites flown by the U.S., Europe, India, China, Russia, and Japan provide nearly continuous observations for a global weather watch.
The field of meteorology entered the space age on April 1, 1960 with the launch of TIROS 1 (TIROS stands for Television and Infra-Red Observation Satellite). Since that time, numerous satellites with ever increasing capablities and sophistication have been deployed.
Weather satellites provide valuable real-time cloud photographs. Most importantly, coverage includes the 70 percent of the earth's surface covered by water where few surface observations can be made. Before the deployment of weather satellites, many areas had no advance warning of impending severe storms. Today satellites can spot and accurately track hurricanes and typhoons while they are still far out in the ocean.
Modern satellites also carry many instruments used to measure various environmental variables, providing vital information to not only meteorologists, but farmers, geologists, fishermen, foresters and others. These measuring capabilites will be discussed in the next section
The following list details many of the uses of weather satellites.
Radiation measurements from the earth's surface and atmosphere give information on the earth-atmosphere energy budget.
Measurements from the ocean surface are translated into sea-surface temperatures - information valuable to the fishing industry as well as meteorologists.
Satellites can monitor snow cover in winter, ice fields in the Arctic and Antarctic, and the height of the ocean's surface.
Infrared sensors on satellites can assess conditions of crops, areas of deforestation and regions of drought.
Some satellites are equipped with a water vapor sensor that can profile the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Volcanic eruptions and the motion of ash clouds can be detected.
During the winter, satellites monitor the southward progress of freezing air in Florida and Texas, allowing forecasters to warn growers of impending low temperatures.
Satellites can receive environmental information from remote data collection platforms on the surface. These include instrumented buoys, river gauges, automatic weather stations, siesmic and tsunami stations, and ships. This information is then relayed to a central receiving station at Wallop's Island, Virginia.
After reading thses, how could you say that this topic is "too narrow to be significant"? Satellites greatly add to our knowledge of weather patterns and other environmental factors that affect us all.
Your points regarding to my topic of medical treatments, are not true all the time. You said, "With the creation of life saving medicine comes the ability to abuse medicine and become addicted to it. For example, Anti-biodics can save someone's life but the more anti-biodics you take the less anti-bodies your body produces because it adapts to the anti-biodics your body is taking in. Then due to your lack of anti-bodies, you are more capable of becoming ill and needing more anti-biodics and the death spiral continues until you completely rely on the drugs to keep you alive."
Technology is like a pencil. The pencil is there for you, but it is you that have to take it, and it is also you that have to decide what to do with it. You could just throw it away, or use it properly. Like this, technology can not be held responsible for the overuse of anti-biodics, since the amount of the anti-biodics taken depends on the user, and the user is obviously responsible for the action taken.
"My opponent stresses cancer for some reason but the fact is that technology can only save 9 out of 10 of these victims."
You should rewrite this sentence. It has go like this, "My opponent stresses cancer for some reason but the fact is that technology COULD only save 9 out of 10 of these victims."
If you check again, when I said,"nine times out of ten, died when cancer got in their way", I was talking about the past, not the present. Thus, I WAS NOT saying that technology CAN only save 9 out of 10 of the victims.
I'm sure people in the seventies weren't depressed because they couldn't have ipods" When I talked about ipods, I was giving it as a general example, covering all the discomforts came from listening to the old-fashioned radio.
I am sure that people did have discomforts and complains about their listening devices. You might say that they could not have complained about such things since they did not even know that such things were going to be invented, but hey, we are complaing about stuff like oil prices when no brilliant solutions are present.
"Once again technology is not what makes the quality of our lives better"
Quality of life is the degree of well-being felt by an individual or group of people. Unlike standard of living, it is not a tangible concept, and so cannot be measured directly. It consists of two components: physical and psychological. The physical aspect includes such things as health, diet, and protection against pain and disease.
As it says, the physical aspect includes such things as health, diet, and protection against pain and disease. Once again, for the protection against pain and disease, the medical treatments based on modern technology come back into the play. Modern technology is saving our asses from the pains and diseases compared to the times when we did not have technology as developed as it is now.
1.-Pills that are made with modern technology can help us in getting back appetite and having a balanced diet.
2.-surgeries with better devices based on modern technology keeps us healthy.
3.-technology used in security reasons such as door locks and such can save us from both physical and mental pain. Your close friends or realatives might be attacked from invaders and robbers, causing you a mental pain, and your friend a physical/mental pain if we did not have modern technology to keep us safe.
4.-Again, surgeries and pills can cure diseases.
*Just because there are diseases that technology can not help to cure, it does not mean that technology has not helped us in enriching our lives. It is becasue our technology is yet to reach its zenith.
the last paragraphs depend on what kind of person you are/
First i would like to extend my framework that was not refuted throughout this debate. (as a reminder) it stated "if the con can prove that on a scale technology does equal to or more damage as it does good in our lives then the con wins this debate."
Because the majority of my opponents last round was copy and pasted from wikipedia i will briefly touch on a few of his closing arguments, and then use the rest of my round to support my own arguments.
Back onto his first point he persists with his argument basically saying that weather satellites outweigh the inherent harms of technology (since according to my framework we are putting everything on a scale). Yes, all of the wikipedia articles that were provided by my opponent make these satellites sound pretty cool, and i'm sure that they are useful in the many ways the articles stated, but that is just one aspect of one area of the large world of technology. We could pick little cool technological advances from anywhere and debate the pro's and con's of each one, but that doesn't make sense. My opponent provided a broad resolution so i assumed we were discussing technology as a whole, and these satellites compared to the rest of the huge world of technology does make them relatively insignificant.
In his second point he talks about medical technology, but the fact is that much of the things we use medical technology for are caused by technology. Cancer is even caused by technology. Cancer can be caused by Ionizing Radiation, and Chemical Carcinogens.() Obesity is largely due to our adaptation to technology, we don't even need to leave our house anymore if we dont want to.
"Technology is like a pencil. The pencil is there for you, but it is you that have to take it, and it is also you that have to decide what to do with it. You could just throw it away, or use it properly."
But people arent using it properly, and the resolution states "technology makes our lives better." not "technology could make our lives better if we choose to use it properly." There are always people who are going to use it incorrectly and it will impact us all as a whole.
"When I talked about ipods, I was giving it as a general example, covering all the discomforts came from listening to the old-fashioned radio."
I was giving a general example as well. i was in no way referring to your example. At the time nobody was dealing with discomforts from listening to the old-fashioned radio. Nobody knew that there was any better, and that is why the quality of the life you live can't be impacted by technology you dont yet have.
My opponent closed with a definition of quality of life that states that there are two aspects to quality of life, physical and psychological. It is for this reason that i find Abraham Maslows Hierarchy of Needs a good basis for us to debate upon, but i will get to that later. My opponent went on to describe how technology helps give us a better quality of life.
"1.-Pills that are made with modern technology can help us in getting back appetite and having a balanced diet.
2.-surgeries with better devices based on modern technology keeps us healthy.
3.-technology used in security reasons such as door locks and such can save us from both physical and mental pain. Your close friends or relatives might be attacked from invaders and robbers, causing you a mental pain, and your friend a physical/mental pain if we did not have modern technology to keep us safe.
4.-Again, surgeries and pills can cure diseases."
My opponent stated no sources but i will go off of his arguments anyway.
first pills made with modern technology to help us diet are only necessary because of our rising obesity issue that is directly linked to technology. Furthermore, these pills are an example of a short cut that technology has made for us. No need to lose weight by actual dieting and getting exercise, we have pills that can do it for us.
second, he talks about surgeries, but once again many surgeries that we have are given only because technology exists.
third he talks about security with locks and everything, but technology has also created a way to pick those locks
four was basically the same as one and two.
On to my case
I. Addiction to technology
We have become addicted to technology, and can no longer live without it. My opponent never refuted this fact and accepted it as an inherent danger to our society. extend my first point
II. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs.
My opponent never refuted this either. However, just to reiterate my argument. Maslow gave us 5 needs for the quality of our lives to be good. he covers both physical and mental aspects that my opponent used for his definition of the quality of life in his third round. Technology does support or fulfill, any of the 5 needs, and actually harms some of them. extend my second point.
III. The Inherent Harms of Technology
I gave several good examples, such as cyber terrorism, nuclear warfare, obesity, online predators, and technology adaptation throughout this round as harms of technology, but i have one more specific example of technology gone wrong. I dont know how many people have heard about the Chernobyl disaster, and it would be difficult to summarize it in a debate. Basically in the Soviet Union they buried a bunch of their nuclear weapons equipment and such in a big hole with a concrete shelter, the shelter cracked and there is an underground lake below where they buried it and "if the wall of the reactor building or the roof of the shelter were to collapse, then large amounts of radioactive dust and particles would be released directly into the atmosphere, resulting in a large new release of radioactivity into the environment." which could kill us all.
and that is only part of the problem with Chernobyl, but it proves that technology is a double edged sword that can do a lot of harm even though it provides convenience.
In conclusion, technology is not what improves our quality of life or in other words makes it better, and even if it were, the bad that comes with technology is at the least equal if not outweighs the good technology provides.
Please vote Con.
Yes without technology we wouldn't know half the stuff we do now.... And we wouldn't even have this site to debate about it right now.
Technology refers to methods, systems, and devices which are the result of scientific knowledge being used for practical purposes.
In order to achieve these requirements which you list (food, water, etc) technology has to be used to provide these items and thus con, you contradict yourself. As population expands, the amount of available resources declines. Technology (which includes things like buckets and irrigation) expands these resources. Therefore, not everybody will have access to food, water, etc without technology.
Cancer is the type of disease that gets its job done. It kills its victims almost certainly, and a diagniosis of cancer is practically a death sentence. This terrifying disease is composed of these vicious cells that grow and divide beyond the normal limits, making cancer incurable.
As a former cancer patient this is the rudest comment I have ever heard!!!!! cancer is not a death sentence and can be easily beat...
It was not good. IT was awesome.
good debate. Nice one, djexcelsior.
Good debate. I havent ever really debated a topic like that before.
For the conclusion, it's supposed to say the last six paragraphs.
I used up all my free time.
yea rofl!!! haha Maslow isn't credible at all! i'm done for!! haha lolz!
on framework its supposed to say &more damage& not &as much damage&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:07&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:70&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:03&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:03&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:03&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:30&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:30&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:30&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:30&
Vote Placed by
7 years ago
zaqsrfcd77djexcelsiorTiedAgreed with before the debate:--0 pointsAgreed with after the debate:--0 pointsWho had better conduct:--1 pointHad better spelling and grammar:--1 pointMade more convincing arguments:--3 pointsUsed the most reliable sources:--2 pointsTotal points awarded:30&
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.
& 2016 . All rights reserved.