The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

. . . Ha! YOU'RE GOING DOWN, BEEM0R!

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: 2/2/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,079 times Debate No: 6730
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (12)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

RESOLVED: It is impossible not to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved.

I saw your previous debate and figure I shall be your opponent.

Ladies and gentleman, sufficiently upholding the resolution shall be rather simple as the claim being made is easily true and just as easy to prove. I see no reason to provide any definitions as I believe the topic to be quite clear. In addition, I reserve the right to disagree with any definitions which my opponent may provide (although knowing me, I'd probably argue the topic in favor of AND against my opponent's definitions if this debate does indeed flow in that path).

To start this debate off, I shall provide merely one contention:

ARGUMENT:When one consciously performs a conscious action, one has control over himself/herself. When one is in control of himself/herself, their actions are based on their wishes /interests of their mind. Ergo, itt is impossible not to act (perform an action) without self interest being involved. Of course, I realize that this may not come off as clear to you all (ladies and gentleman), hence, I shall provide an example:

EXAMPLE: Let us say that an individual named LM wakes up, only to find himself strapped down to a chair with several dozen hott cheerleaders surrounding him. All of the cheerleaders wish to have their way with the handsome LM, but LM realizes that he promised he'd pick up a subscription for his good pal of a roommate who was heavily ill. The cheerleaders tell LM that they'll only let him go if he lets them have their way with him. Fearing that his friends life is at stake, LM agrees.

Looking at this example, one must note that in spite of the fact that LM claimed to be allowing the cheerleaders to have their way with him to save his sick friend (which is seemingly selfless), the fact of the matter is that LM's friend's safety was LM's personal desire, hence making it an action of self interest.

Point: Regardless of how selfless an action may seem, if an individual is consciously performing that action, we can conclude that the individual is getting a result from said action that fulfills his/her own interest. If this is not in fact the case, I challenge my opponent to provide AT LEAST one example of a conscious action that doesn't meet my criteria. Though trust me, my opponent shall not be able to do this (hence the topic title).

And that'll do it for now.
beem0r

Con

I would eplain the vast differences between this debate and the previous one my opponent refers to, but that would only waste your time and mine.

Rather, I will explain why my opponent's position is false.

"It is impossible not to consciously act without self-interest being involved." That is his stance. The wording is a bit tricky, but a careful examination of it shows us that my opponent is advocating something truly ridiculous.

Let's look at a specific and general example of sentences in this form.

Specific: It is impossible to eat without having a mouth.
Generic: It is impossible [A] without [B].

So for the specific example, "To eat" is A, and "having a mouth" is B. What this sentence means is that A can only happen with B.

Now, let's look at what A and B are for my opponent's sentence, "It is impossible not to consciously act without self-interest being involved"
A is "Not to consciously act," B is "self interest being involved."
So what my opponent is claiming is that self interest being involved is a necessary condition for _not_ consciously acting. This is patently false - a dead man doesn't consciously act, and there's no self interest involved in that, a rock doesn't consciously act, a man bleeding to death is not consciously acting, and yet there is no self-interest involved.

Since this is a four-round debate, I will leave it at that for now. Good luck to my opponent, and thank you all for reading.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

Okay, just now reading the round, it would appear that my typo in the first round has given my opponent the wrong idea about this debate. In R1, it should have said "It is impossible to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved." The "not" was included by accident. Through reading the argument which I provided (which shows self interest being involved in allowing a conscious action), my initial intentions should be rather clear. Many apologies to my opponent. Fortunately, I made this a 4 round debate by mistake, so if my opponent agrees, we can dismiss all of what he has said in his first round and he can start anew in his second (hence treating this like a 3 round debate). Of course, just in case he doesn't wish to abide by this, I STILL see a flaw in his argument and would thus argue that unintentional position regardless. The choice is his though.

Till the next round.
beem0r

Con

My opponent has recanted his original position, which he stated twice in R1 as "It is impossible not to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved." He says it was simply a typo. If so, then it is his burden to bear - against an ordinary opponent, I might accept his changing of the topic, but my opponent is known for getting by on technicalities. Further, I would not have accepted the debate if it was worded the way my opponent suggests he meant it. As you can see in his R1, I recently had a debate about a related topic. My opponent claimed that all actions were selfish, and I negated his claim in two ways. First, I showed that selfishness includes a 'lack of regard for others' component, and I gave examples of actions with regard for others. Second, I showed that some actions that are done unwillingly can be unselfish. However, the resolution my opponent apparently wanted to use in this debate does not conflict with either of my arguments - it's carefully worded so that the arguments I used in my previous debate do not have any impact.

Since my opponent has left it up to me, I will of course hold him to the resolution he used in R1.

And not that it makes any difference, but I'll just explain how this debate would have gone if we used my opponent's revised resolution. The debate would come down to the definition of conscious - consciously acting does not mean the same thing as willfully acting. One may be conscious of the fact that he is bleeding to death, but that does not mean he wants to bleed to death, and it doesn't mean he is bleeding to death due to self-interest.
But that is moot. We are not arguing that resolution, we are arguing the resolution in my opponent's 1st round - 'It is impossible not to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved.'

And so it was that round 2 was meaningless, and the debate became one of three rounds for all intents and purposes.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

--->RE:Since my opponent has left it up to me, I will of course hold him to the resolution he used in R1."

Very well then. Ladies and gentleman, whereas at first glance, it would appear that I was the one going down, the flaws in my opponent's case grant him no chance at victory here as I will show you soon enough:

--->RE:"So what my opponent is claiming is that self interest being involved is a necessary condition for _not_ consciously acting."

Indeed so, because if one isn't consciously acting, one is unconsciously acting.

-------->RE: "This is patently false - a dead man doesn't consciously act, and there's no self interest involved in that, a rock doesn't consciously act, a man bleeding to death is not consciously acting, and yet there is no self-interest involved."

No, a dead man acts alright as do rocks and other inanimate objects.

http://www.work911.com...
http://www.iridiumconsulting.co.uk...

As we can see here by these highly credible source and their air tight explanations, it is impossible not to act as it is impossible not to communicate. A dead man communicates with silence as does a rock and their messages are the following: 1) I am dead (the dead man). 2) I am an inanimate object (for the rock). Essentially, one ALWAYS communicates. Thus, given that I've established that one always acts (which can be make up for the "not consciously acting clause" of the resolution, I need only concern myself with the self interest part as of now.

Ladies and gentleman, this is just as easy to prove as I am dictating that all action is associated with self interest. I submit that as long as at least one person has some self interest when existence is concerned (I myself am very interested in all of existence), self interest is indeed involved. Of course, I'm not the only one who has self interest in existence, but I'm enough to prove the resolution true. Remember, self interest merely needs involvement and my self interest is involved in existence. And given that the resolution is set in the present (is), it means that it concerns status quo, meaning my opponent cannot bring up the possibility that all humans will be annihilated.

Now . . . though I don't have to, I shall respond to all unrelated matters:

"The debate would come down to the definition of conscious - consciously acting does not mean the same thing as willfully acting. One may be conscious of the fact that he is bleeding to death, but that does not mean he wants to bleed to death, and it doesn't mean he is bleeding to death due to self-interest."

No, consciously acting is indeed willfully acting. If you have control over something, you're willing it. As for bleeding to death, that is an unconscious actio, but believe it or not, is no different than one giving into his/her limits and dropping the barbel when they are bench pressing heavy weights. The body can no longer take the strain, thus gives in out of being interested in it's own strain. The same can be applied to bleeding to death.

----->RE: "My opponent claimed that all actions were selfish, and I negated his claim in two ways. First, I showed that selfishness includes a 'lack of regard for others' component, and I gave examples of actions with regard for others. Second, I showed that some actions that are done unwillingly can be unselfish. However, the resolution my opponent apparently wanted to use in this debate does not conflict with either of my arguments - it's carefully worded so that the arguments I used in my previous debate do not have any impact."

Believe it or not, this was sort of my intention. It must have been due to habit alone that I unconsciously devised ways around it in the resolution. Still, being that my only concern is to debate, I shall gladly counter these fallacious claims made by my opponent.

1) Is there truly a regard for others in these actions? Granted, others benefit from them, but in acting out on these decisions, one is merely appealing to their own way of life. For instance, let us focus on your example where the man helps the old lady across the street? What do you think is initially in the man's mind before he does this? I'll tell you: That lady might need some help crossing the street. I'd better help her so that I "feel like a better person" or "further strengthen what I know to be important in life." If neither of the above is the case, the man simply wouldn't help the old lady as if he doesn't perceive any standards as being important or if he doesn't feel that helping the old lady will make him a better person, he wouldn't be the kind of person to help the old lady in the first place (well actually, he could be, provided he had ulterior motives to helping the old lady . . . which would still fall under selfishness). The point to be made here is that individuals act either to gain or to uphold their paradigms of life (which, is colloquially referred to as "standards"). Often, these paradigms of life merely happen to benefit others.

2) Unwilling actions would fall under unconscious actions and would simply link back to my weight lifting example.

So there you have it ladies and gentleman. I have this debate in the palm of my hands regardless of the choices made. I now await CON's next round.

Toodles.
beem0r

Con

Consciously - a word that my opponent has somehow forgotten. Included in his resolution as an attempt to ward off one of my possible arguments, he now abandons the term when the tables have turned.

My opponent first explains that a dead man and a rock both act. Even if this is based on a very shaky definition of the word 'act,' it simply does nt matter. We are not debating whether or not it is possible not to act without self interest, we are debating whether or not it is possible for them not to _consciously_ act. Depending on our definition of consciously, it can mean either willfully or with awareness. A dead man and a rock both possess no will, and no awareness - it is impossible for them to consciously act. In fact, whatever they are doing or not doing, they are necessarily NOT consciously acting, something my opponent claims is impossible.

Next, my opponent claims that all actions involve self-interest. To support this claim, my opponent claims that he himself has interest in all of existence. Once again, he has left out a very important qualifier - we are not talking about interest in general, we are talking about SELF-interest, interest in oneself. A nebula swirling does so with no self-interest involved. It is not consciously acting, without self interest being involved - something my opponent claims to be impossible.

Further, even if self-interest did include anyone's interest in a thing, my opponent is not qualified to testify in this debate. He has clear motive to lie, and he has given us no reason to believe him, besides the fact that he is claiming it.

==Unrelated matters, the debate my opponent intended
My opponent says that consciously acting means willful acting, but the definitions do not bear him out on that. Rather, it means _knowingly_ acting. To be conscious is to be aware, to be able to perceive the world around you. The definition from Merriam-webster that most closely resembles my opponent's definition is:
"capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception" - the "or" used means that something is conscious if it fulfills just ONE of those traits - in this case, marked by perception. A person bleeding to death is doing so consciously as long as they perceive that they are bleeding to death - in other words, as long as they are knowingly bleeding to death, as long as they are conscious of the fact that they are bleeding to death, they are consciously doing so.

But anyway, that is all for R3. Let me recap my counterpoints.

1. My opponent claims that even inanimate objects act, but he does not show that everything _consciously_ acts. Thus, he as not shown that it is impossible not to consciously act period [which would affirm the resolution]. Indeed, I have shown that many things are capable of not consciously acting - combined with #2, this negates the resolution.
2. My opponent claims that self-interest is involved in every instance of acting [using my opponent's shaky definition of 'acting,']. This is incorrect - self-interest means interest in oneself; thus, for a rock's act of 'existing' to involve self-interest, the only entity whose interest would be called 'self-interest' is the rock itself, which is incapable of having interest.

Thus, for every object that is incapable of consciousness and incapable of interest, it is true that it is not consciously acting without self-interest, which my opponent claims is impossible. Thus, I negate the resolution by providing examples of such objects - rocks, nebulae, stars, droplets of water, Pringles, chairs, etc.
Debate Round No. 3
Logical-Master

Pro

CONSCIOUS SECTION:

Ladies and gentleman, my opponent's sole objection to argument concerning all things being able to act is that I have yet to prove that all things are consciously able to act. However, little does my opponent know this is indeed implied by my argument on self existence. Let me provide you all with an example of what I intend to say:

The United States is a large mass of land, yet presidents and rulers of countries constantly refer to it as if it is conscious or as if it is a person. Now how is it that an inanimate mass of land is able to possess traits of a conscious individual? This is simple, because we conscious individuals have bonded ourselves to this mass of land, thus give it our traits in exchange. Of course, this isn't merely applicable to countries or houses. Rather, if we can agree that existence is our territory (or domain), then all parts of it that lack conscious can be spoken for by those that do have a conscious, provided it is considered our home.

Hence, a rock is able to consciously act without even having a conscience. To add, whenever a rock acts, it acts in merely reestablishing that it is part our house (our domain). To briefly expand this logic, you don't call an individual who drives motorcycle fast, do you? Of course not. It is not the individual who is fast, but rather the motorcycle. But yet we can claim that the individual is moving fast. The same apply here. The rock doesn't need to possess a conscious to act consciously , nor does the United States or California.

Thus, it is rather clear that I have sufficiently addressed the matter of consciousness and need merely further respond to the matters concerning self interest.

SELF INTEREST SECTION:

Now first, I would like to point out that two individuals in the comment section (one being my very opponent) has testified to being interested in existence. Ergo, I need merely focus on the matter of self interest in existence being evidence of the resolution.

"For example, let's say two medics were killed in a crash. Saying "Medics were involved in a crash" is true, but where medics is an umbrella term that holds many different, individual medics, we cannot say that every medic in existence was therefore involved in the crash. All we can say is that some _part_ of that group 'medics' was involved in the crash, just as some part of my interest in everything would be involved in a rock existing."

Actually, we can. Every medic in existence may not have been physically involved in the crash, but they were involved in the crash in an idea perspective in that their name will be affected simply because others who adhere to same group experienced the crash. In other words, association is all that is necessary for an effect. In the debate, this is the same idea I am portraying with self interest.

Thus, I beleii
beem0r

Con

We have agreed that all objects act, since we are using my opponent's definition of act.
However, as I pointed out last round, not all things consciously act. For instance, when a rock 'exists' this is not a conscious action, even if it is an action.
My opponent's first order of business in his closing round is to argue against this. He attempts to show that even inanimate objects act consciously.

==
Consciousness
To support this, he brings up the United States of America. He claims that "presidents and rulers of countries constantly refer to it as if it is conscious or as if it is a person." First of all, my opponent has failed to support this assertion. I, for one, have not been hearing politicians constantly referring to the United States as conscious. Further, even if it is true that politicians refer to it as conscious, that does not mean it actually IS conscious. Based on the definitions given by dictionaries, it does not seem that the United States of America.
But hey, let's look at the off-chance that the United States could be considered 'conscious.' It would only be considered conscious because it is made up of conscious entities. In fact, if it was to be considered conscious, we would not be referring to the mass of land currently known as the USA, but rather to the collection of people who make up this nation.

A rock, on the other hand, is not conscious, and cannot be by any standard. I've brought up many times what 'conscious' means - it means 'aware.' Something without awareness, such as a rock or a nebula, cannot consciously act, since it can never be aware of its actions [or using the other definition, it can never deliberately act, since it has no will].

So that is it for the first order of business - consciousness. Only things with awareness and/or a will can consciously act. This includes certain organisms [like humans], and arguably also includes societies of said organisms [like the USA]. However, it cannot include a rock. My opponent's only argument that it could is that individuals with a conscious could speak for the rock. Note, however, that this would not be the rock consciously acting, it would be an individual consciously 'speaking for' the rock, whatever my opponent means by that.

==
Self Interest Being Involved
My opponent next tries to argue that self-interest is involved in all actions. I myself have already admitted to being interested in the whole of existence. This simply means that every object that exists has my interest. However, interest is very different than self-interest, as I have already pointed out. I am self-interested in myself, but I am not self-interested in anything else.

However, my opponent has tried to argue that since I am interested in everything, and I am interested in myself, my interest in myself is therefore involved in my interest in every other thing. This is simply not true. First, let me remind anyone who doesn't know english what 'involved' means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
First, it can mean complicated. This obviously isn't what is meant by the resolution. However, if it was, then this would be simple for me. Self-interest is never involved in this sense, it's always quite simple. But alas, context means that this is not the definition we want to use.
"Being affected or implicated" is the definition. Thus, my opponent is trying to argue that every action by any thing either affects or implicates my own self-interest. This is simply not true. Most actions by other things do not affect my self-interest. My self interest would be exactly the same whether that nebula on the other side of the universe existed or not.
And of course, here's the definition for 'implicate.'
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The definition in question is the first one, a fact that is obvious as it specifically mentions the fact that it is a form of involvement. "to involve as a consequence, corollary, or natural inference." And of course, none of those fit. My self-interest is not a consequence of a nebula on the other side of the universe, it is not a corrolary of it, and it isn't a natural inference that one would draw from a nebula on the other side of the universe existing.

And thus, I have shown that it IS possible to not consciously act without self-interest being involved. A nebula on the other side of the universe does it, a ham sandwich on a taiwanese peasant's table, and many other things do it all the time. I have negated the resolution in the fullest sense.

Thank you for reading, and vote wisely.
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragaxus 6 years ago
Ragaxus
J, please don't comment on debates for which the main source of interest ended about a year ago--you can check whether there's still interest in the round by looking at the "Updated" part of the voting pane. Also, please read what the debaters themselves had to say before stating your own opinions. Given that you've stated exactly what beem0r said in his constructive, valid though it may be, it shows that you've neglected to read the round before commenting on it.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"It is impossible not to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved."

Nice double negative. So it's possible to consciously act without self interest being involved? Your arguments don't seem to support that contention.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Hah. Keep dreaming.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Checkmate beem0r. There's no way you come back in time to respond. :D
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Bahahah.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Anyway, the challenge to debate you on your initial debate (beem0r) is up for grabs. It would seem that by accident of my own intuitiveness, I stumbled upon psychological egoism (which theskeptic had pointed out to me). I've never debated in favor of it before thus am dying to try it out.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
If it's just the idea alone, you aren't interested. Still, beem0r said he was interested, so that's good enough for my testimonial evidence. :D
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Eh, basically, the problem with your analogy is that the medic aren't physically involved, but are involved nonetheless due to being in the same group. Meaning individuals will base on one member merely on what happens to another. In this way, my self interest argument is bulletproof. You're interested in all of existence while maintaining self interest. Because you associated yourself in this group called existence/reality, your mindset and actions affect everything else (EVEN IF THE AFFECTS ARE ON A VERY VERY VERY MINUTE SCALE).
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
That should say "I believe I've addressed all related matters" at the end. Boy, that was a close one.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I'll find some way to beat you beem0r.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Impressive defense LM of a near impossible resolution.
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 Wii_Master_Nin 8 years ago
Wii_Master_Nin
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 NYCDiesel 8 years ago
NYCDiesel
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
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 animea 8 years ago
animea
Logical-Masterbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05