The Instigator
Advidoct
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
stk1990
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

A Palestinian State

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/25/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,998 times Debate No: 987
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (12)

 

Advidoct

Pro

You can argue that the Palestinians have done nothing but create chaos and havoc in the middle east, but they are not the only ones to blame.
Why on earth would the US Government think it was OK to take land that was palestinian, and give to the Jews. What do you think would happen in the US if Iran tried to take Florida and give it to the Kurds??? Talk about rioting, death, and war when the Kurds showed up.
Im am not in anyway trying to attack the Jews. I have a lot fo Jewish family and I am pro Jewish state as well, but their needs to be a palestinian state too. It is not only right, but it is the key to peace in Israel.
stk1990

Con

Let's take your comparison into account here first of all: In terms of taking Florida and giving it to the Kurds, that would not make any sense, because the Kurds have no historical claim to the land. On the other hand, the Jews have lived in Israel since the time of Abraham.

And so if you want to claim that the land is "Palestinian" then you are wrong. It's not as if the Palestinians had been living in the territory since time immemorial. The Palestinians took the land from the Jews during the time of Muhammad just as the Jews took the land from the Arabs back in 1947.

The main argument here rests with the legitimacy of the claims the respective parties have to the land. The Palestinian and Israeli claims are both based on historical occupation and religious directives. Thus, those claims cannot be taken seriously in an international context. The sole right of Israel to that land must be found somewhere else. The only thing we can take from the historical claim is that unlike your Kurd/Florida analogy, the claim on Israel by the Jews actually makes sense.

Let's examine the history. The United States did not just draw a line in the sand and declare Israel to be a nation, only to have an exodus of Jews arrive in Israel where there were none before. In fact it was the British who allowed the movement of Jews to Palestine during their League of Nations Mandate over the territory from 1919-1947. And by the time Israel was created by the United Nations, 500,000 Jews lived in the territory created in 1947, as compared to 350,000 Arabs. Only later on did the floodgates open and Jewish refugees from the Holocaust enter Jerusalem. At that point there was a Palestinian state. But the Arabs destroyed their opportunity when they tried to wipe Israel and the Jews off the map. Through several major wars, Israel continued to expand to its' present size.

If we want to be fair here, we cannot abide by historical claims to the land. Historical claims contradict each other - they overlap - and no impartial arbitrator can give certain historical claims legitimacy over others. In terms of deciding who gets the land we have to look at in a sense of fairness. Maybe the creation of Israel could have been done better. But what matters now is that the citizens of Israel now were actually born in Israel. They have as much right to the land the Palestineans claim to have.

The difference is the Jews have suffered throughout all of history - yet they have thrived! And thus, they deserve a state of their own in which they can live peacefully. Every nation deserves a state of it's own, and the only place that the Jews can live is in Israel. The Palestinians on the other hand, have proven to be militant in their hatred towards Israel. The Israelis have taken a defensive approach, even GIVING BACK land it has gained. The Palestinians want it all.

The most compromise that I can see is creating a dual-party state. But if I had to favor one group over the other, it would be the Jews. Creating two states would not solve the situation. A compromise like THAT leaves everyone unhappy.
Debate Round No. 1
Advidoct

Pro

You seem to be missing my point.
First, Im not saying the Jews dont need a homeland. In fact, I specifically said i thought they did. My point is this.

Why do the Jews get a homeland and the palestinians dont?

Israel is just as much home to the palestinians as it is to the Jews. The Jews have no more claim to the land then the Palestinians do.

The Florida analogy. It is very much a good example. We dont have any historical claim over Florida just like the Kurds don't, so why are we more entitled to it? I mean, we didnt settle there first. As a matter of fact, the Spanish did. Except about the whole part about them taking lots of it from France...who, by the way...took it from the Native Americans.
My point is that claim to land has NOTHING to do with "who was there first".
If we base the legitimacy of the Israeli state on the Jews being there first then we better give the United States back to the Native Americans.

Land doesnt not belong to whoever was there first.

The land belongs to whoever holds the power. In Flordia's case, it belongs to the United States. In Palestine's case, it was the Palestinians. It doesnt matter how many Jews are there at the time. Frankly, it doesnt matter how many Palestinians were there. If they hold the power, they lay claim to the land.
Saying "I was here first" doesnt get you your land back.

Whats more, before the Jews even arrived, the Sumarians settled there. After 4,000 years of living there, the Babylonians invaded and took over. This is around when the Jews first showed up, and they themselves never ruled the land. The Babylonians ruled for nearly 1,000 years, until the Assyrians invaded. The Assyrians ruled there for 500 years until Persia showed up. All of these people lived in the Palestine. Jews, palestinians, persians, egyptians, and even Italians have some legitimate right to call it home.
So why do the Jews get it? They dont have any more of a claim to that land than half the world.

With all of the Chaos and death in Israel/Palestine, we need to resolve the issue and pouring money into Irael isnt gunna do it. The Palestinians need a homeland.
If the Israelis are already willing to give up land then we need to declare part of the country as a Palestinian State. Let the Palestinians set up government, settle in, and get a foothold on some of their land and I bet they wont be nearly as hostile.
stk1990

Con

You Said:

"Land doesnt not belong to whoever was there first.

The land belongs to whoever holds the power. In Flordia's case, it belongs to the United States. In Palestine's case, it was the Palestinians. It doesnt matter how many Jews are there at the time. Frankly, it doesnt matter how many Palestinians were there. If they hold the power, they lay claim to the land.
Saying "I was here first" doesnt get you your land back."

Thus, the land belongs to the Israelis because they hold the power. Why do the Jews get the land? Because they have held the land for the past 60 years. If we were to take the land from the Jews, it would be just as much of a crime as taking the land from the Arabs back in 1947. Jews living there today were born there.

Now, giving the Palestineans an independent state would actually cause more problems in the Middle East than it would solve. It is the stated policy of several terrorist groups to use any land that the Israelis give to the PLO to launch further attacks on Israel. The Palestineans cannot manage themselves (as seen in the latest Hamas-Fatah civil war in which Hamas now holds the Gaza Strip and Fatah holds the West Bank). The Israelis, however, are able to keep their own house in order.
Debate Round No. 2
Advidoct

Pro

The Israeli's may have control, but they are willing to compromise. In fact they have already tried. The Israeli government is not gunna straight up reject any propsotion that could result in peace. They will be more than willing to compromise. They dont really have another choice.

You also said:
"Now, giving the Palestineans an independent state would actually cause more problems in the Middle East than it would solve. It is the stated policy of several terrorist groups to use any land that the Israelis give to the PLO to launch further attacks on Israel. The Palestineans cannot manage themselves (as seen in the latest Hamas-Fatah civil war in which Hamas now holds the Gaza Strip and Fatah holds the West Bank). The Israelis, however, are able to keep their own house in order."

Now lets talk through this.

The Palestinians are mad. Why? Because we kicked them of of their land and gave it to the Jews. Gee, that explains all of the killing and hatred. Now how do we solve this problem. Well the way I see it, we have two options.
1. We can kill them all and essentially declare war on the entire islamic world.

or

2. We can try to quech their anger by giving them comfort. Give them some of their land back. Give them some infrastructure; some healthcare, grocery stores, electric and water utilities. Give them less to complain about.

Comfortable people dont shoot missles at their neighbors.

Also, even if the Palestinians didn't quit attacking Israel, we can police the border. We can take military action. Its not like we dont do that already. Israel definatly will take military action. Palestine would hardly be a threat if they caused problems.

Lastly, we HAVE to do something. Thousands have died from this comflict and more die every week. If we dont take action, this will continue. Its not just gunna work itself out. Now, I dont see any possible action that we can take except to give them a homeland. Whether or not it works is another debate entirely. The fact of the matter is, what we are doing (or rather not doing) right now isnt gunna solve the problem. At least if we try to quench their anger, we have a shot.

Here is an equation to represent my point.

Stolen Homeland = Unhappy people
Unhappy people = War and Violence
War and Violence = Death and more unhappy people

Returned Homeland = Happy People
Happy people = No war and violence.
No War and Violence = Life and More Happy People

Which equation do you choose. The answer seems completely obvious to me.
stk1990

Con

The answer is not obvious, because splitting the land between the two parties will not create happy people on both sides. Both sides want it all. Also, it is impossible to split the states among lines that will be acceptable to both parties. There is not a clear delineating line between "Jewish Areas" and "Palestinian Areas". Are you willing to force the sides to live apart?

A solely Palestinian state will lead to reprisals against the Jewish communities. A solely Israeli state (perhaps with limited Palestinian administration) is the best option. This is why: Because the Israelis have shown that they are willing to live in a liberal democracy, not a terrorist theocracy (the Palestinians, when given the chance, voted Hamas into power in the legislature). The Palestinians are hostile to their neighbor Israel, while Israel just wants to live in peace.
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JasonMc 9 years ago
JasonMc
In no way do I mean to be insensitive to the religious and social holdings of the people in that region of the world, but I think that a compromise will have to be made, otherwise the fighting over there will never end. They should both have a state, or neither should have a state. Maybe the region should be declared neutral and no one gets claim to anything.

Though all religions have extremist followers, I argue that the majority of Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike want to live peaceful lives. The problem lies in the leadership of the people in question.

When leaders address their people charismatically against another people, diplomacy often goes out the window. Peaceful solutions could be found for the most complex of issues, but too often rulers feel compelled to take an all or nothing mentality, and then rally their people behind them.

People are so used to doing as they've been told that the notion of applying a different mentality to such matters is lost. The notion that the people have the power to make the changes that need to be made is lost. As a result, the same kinds people who have caused so many of the problems the world is facing today remain in power, perpetuating their people in the wrong direction. It's sad to see the rest of the world get pulled in to this exchange.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
I never said there were no Jews in the land, just that the land owned by and controlled by a Jewish government keep expanding.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
Israel is a recognized, sovereign nation. "Palestine" is not, and recognizing this reality is hardly "splitting hairs." To put another spin on your analogy, nobody would correctly call somebody "doctor" if that person had only finished one year of medical school, regardless of how many people have the fantasy in their minds that such a person is in fact a doctor.

On the so-called Right of Return: the premise of your question is false. There was a large Jewish presence in the Holy Land during almost the entire period from 1300 BCE until 135 CE, minus the 70 year Babylonian Exile. The reason Jews have a right to live in Israel is because of Israeli law (any country has the inherent right to determine who its citizens are to be). What I was talking about was the Palestinian meritless claim of "refugee" status under International Law. The Palestinians are the first people in history (that I'm aware of) to pass the mantle of "refugee" from generation to generation.

As to the morality of the regime, well, the Arabs (including the residents of the Holy Land who fled) started a war with the admitted purpose of destroying the nascent Jewish state and implementing a massacre on par with what the Mongols did. Thankfully, they failed. And when you start a war and lose, you don't get the status quo ante and the ability to pretend that nothing happened. You get punitive damages assessed against you. That's what deters countries from starting wars. That's what happened to the Arabs, and the ethnic Germans who were (uncontroversially, mind you) driven out of Poland and Czechoslovakia after WWII.

If the so-called refugees don't like their situation, they should take it up with the Arab states that began warring against Israel, and (except Jordan) refuse to integrate those refugees into their populations. Otherwise, well, TFB. Israel won -- they lost. As my grandmother always said, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
We're really splitting hairs at this point. And your getting into Semantics too...
Hell, you should like the debate about whether or not someone with a doctorate should be called a "doctor" going on in the euthenasia debate.
If you insist, people could start saying the debate clash should be on whether or not there is such a place as Israel, since technically, some peopel don't recognize it's "right to exist outside its borders in practice"... but what would we learn from that? If I refer to a land called ISrael, you know where I mean.

Answer me this, if the right of return should not cross generations, then why is it that a people who had very little going on in Palestine except for a breif period of history thousands of years back in a tiny area have a right of return for the whole area?
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
I could not care less what most of the world thinks. If most of the world believes in the tooth fairy, that doesn't make it so. I'm not really seeing the point of the Kurdistan analogy. That term refers to loosely defined areas of sovereign nations where Kurds happen to predominantly reside. In any event, unlike the Kurds and "Kurdistan", the entire concept of the "Palestinians" and their so-called narrative is a massive set of lies and obfuscations perpetrated on the world (albeit successfully, as you recognize) to obscure the fact that the conflict is, in reality, between Israel and the entire Arab world. It's rather remarkable what the Arabs have accomplished in this regard. When I was very young, the common parlance was the "Arab/Israeli Conflict," which accurately characterized the conflict as between Israel and the Arab world, with the Arabs taking the first/aggressor position. Now, it's characterized as the far more narrow "Israeli/Palestinian Conflict," with Israel in the first/aggressor position. I never denied there was welfare bias in Israel (I'm sure there is in any country to an extent) -- I responded to your far different contention that "As for non Jews in Israel, they are NOT WELFARE RECIPIENTS." If you're going to change arguments on the fly, this is going to be a very frustrating process. In any event, the article you cite appears to be over eight years old (so its figures may not be accurate anymore) and requires a paid subscription to read. As for so-called "freedom-fighting," if you intentionally attack somebody who is unarmed and a civilian not near a military target, that is murder. Period. The laws of war exist to distinguish between legitimate warfare and murder and to protect civilians from harm (at least to the extent possible) during a time of war. These are not debatable points. How people manage to justify blowing up teens in a Sbarro's as legitimate "freedom-fighting" will never cease to amaze me.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
"Citizenship: Actually, converts are more clearly Jewish in their religion than those born into it. Can we rely on the inheritance of labels the way we rely on conversion as a sign of faith? It is because citizenship is so easily given to those born into it, that I refered to it being given by "race". To be "Jewish" can be deined in either religious or ethnic terms, or both. Of course, since the practice of assuming that people are born into a faith matches being born into a nationality, and that system of citizenship is the norm, I hardly think the distinction is of great relevance here. My bigger interest is in the fact that religion equals rubber stamp there."

Of course you don't think the distinction between race and religion "is of great relevance" because you entirely miss the point of it. Race (or ethnicity for that matter) is something inherent that one can't control or "convert" to. Try as I might, I will never be able to become an Arab or an Asian or an African-American. Religion can be changed. Any Arab who desires to can convert to Judaism and will be just as much of a Jew as anybody in Israel. In addition, race doesn't inherently impact one's conduct or one's belief system, at least not nearly as directly as religion does.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
Voting Israel out of existence means exactly what it says. If the Arabs obtain a majority, the country of Israel will cease to exist. The name will be changed, the flag will be changed, the national anthem will be changed, the laws and policies that provide for the Jewish character of the State will be scrapped. The Israel that served as a haven for desperate, persecuted Jews from all over the world, from Ethiopia to the Soviet Union, will no longer exist. Jews will ultimately be reduced to the Dhimmi status they had in Arab/Muslim countries prior to 1948. You might find the moral case for such a reality compelling, but no sane Israeli would ever accept this.

I FULLY support a written constitution, and one of Israel's biggest failures is that it lacks one. But if the Arabs obtain a majority, such a Constitution will be nothing more than a piece of paper. When Bashaar Asad came to power in Syria, that country spent all of about 20 minutes "amending" their Constitution so that he could "lawfully" be installed.

Nobody is talking about ignoring election results. What I oppose is drowning Israel with millions of hostile Arabs, the vast majority of whom never set foot in Israel at any point in their lives and have no right to citizenship there.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
And it is because we should worry for minorities in democracies that we must build a constitution. Without safeguards for minorities, you get mob rule, and 51% of the population could decide that the other 49% doesn't have the right to vote (or even live). That removes them from the political arena. Then the remaining 51% can keep dividing into smaller camps and eliminating the minorities remaining. Human bigotry tends to lend itself to those scenarios. Thus the need for protection of minorities from majoritarianism.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
No Palestine? That's like saying there's no Kurdistan. There is a land, and a nation. The abcense of a recognized state does not mean there is nothing there. Besides, most of the world openly sees a Palestine.

Been a while since I'd read about welfare bias in Israel, but I found this by Zeev Roshenhek
http://iss.sagepub.com...

Yes, Israelis vote in their electoral system. How many in occupied Palestine get to vote in that same electoral system? THey cannot, despite the fact that their occupation shows that Israeli elections affect them. At least they have their own elections. THat's democracy, so you might as well recognize their vote.

Many Palestinians want to go to Israel because it has the best land, most water, and is rich. We can probably discuss many reasons for Israel's riches. I'd liek to think the Jewish tradition of debate hasn't made it any more poor. But the billions of financial aid from the US plays a role in developing the high tech industry of Israel. Palestinians also lack any economic choice since their own land is poor. Again, multiple reasons, but the bombings, invasions, demolitions don't enrich them. Add to that the security wall that separates farmers from their farms. Paul Wolfawitz said this was to help "bring peace" to the area but making the Palestinian labor more dependant on Israeli bosses. No wonder he had the world bank fund the wall in Palestine. He understood that if you destroy an economy, you make the locals more exploitable, and then maybe they cannot resist anymore. People gravitate towards rich countries in which they will be mistreated for the obvious economic reasons. That's just a general tendency, and it holds true here.
The fact that CHurchill realized how unpopular his bombings made him doesn't mean it wasn't debatable. It goes back to the never-ending question of whether or not the ends justify the means.

Happy New Year.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
solarman1969
Thanks for the data.
Mig283
If you think that a right of return would lead to many Muslims voting Israel out of existance, I think you must specify on what that means. They would certainly chage many parts of it. THey would also vote for those with a foriegn policy that does not impose on neighbors undemocratically. But I cannot imagine them voting the state out of existance. I'm pretty sure they would have a preferance for the electoral system of Israel, in which you already have party pluralcy. People tend to accept that pluralcy. But hey, if you really fear that they'll "vote the state out of existance", here's a thought, support a written constitution. THis consituttion could set in stone that such votes have a high bar to face (2/3, 3/4 majrity, etc), or simply make it impossible. Israel shoudl do this anyway, as demographic trends indicate that there will be more arabs soon even without any right to return.

Citizenship: Actually, converts are more clearly Jewish in their religion than those born into it. Can we rely on the inheritance of labels the way we rely on conversion as a sign of faith? It is because citizenship is so easily given to those born into it, that I refered to it being given by "race". To be "Jewish" can be deined in either religious or ethnic terms, or both. Of course, since the practice of assuming that people are born into a faith matches being born into a nationality, and that system of citizenship is the norm, I hardly think the distinction is of great relevance here. My bigger interest is in the fact that religion equals rubber stamp there.

Your comments on a one state, two nations system remind me of those Figians who say that they oppose democracy because democracy = the local Indian population ruling the country. You cannot brag about how wonderful your democracy is on one hand, but then say you want to ignore popular election results. If you say that you oppose the most democratic part of the Israeli system
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rakovsky 3 years ago
rakovsky
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: No one cited anything, had seriously bad grammar or conduct, Whether there should be a Palestinian State or a mixed state seems left up to the parties and international groups, not just me. But personally I PREFER mixed, and think divided is just "OK", so long as other rights are followed. Pro's job is to show that there needs to be a Pal. State "too", ie in addition. Pro meant that ancient claims don't count, what counts is who holds power at the beginning of the time when the dispute happened- Palestinians, and concludes Palestinians can't be without a state. Pro says something had to be done in terms of independence to meet their needs to stop the conflict. Con's answer of a "sole" Israeli state sounds less peaceful, because it doesn't solve the Debate's problem of resolving conflict. Is Pro's Pal state answer better than Con's no state answer that fuels conflict? Yes - some home is "better" than none!
Vote Placed by vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by AK-47debater 9 years ago
AK-47debater
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by KingYosef 9 years ago
KingYosef
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by NSG 9 years ago
NSG
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mv 9 years ago
mv
Advidoctstk1990Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03