The Instigator
Korezaan
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
nini722
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

A fence should not be built around U.S borders, anywhere

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: 5/6/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,054 times Debate No: 3914
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (13)

 

Korezaan

Pro

I affirm

Definitons---
Fence – a barrier enclosing (the US)
Should – Morally obliged to (do action X)
U.S. – The United States of America
Border - the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line
Observations---
1) I have a few problems with the wording of the resolution, though I believe we all understand the meaning of its intent. The resolution reads "A fence should not be built [around] US borders, anywhere", while usually it's more like "A fence should not be built [on] US borders." For the time being and unless CON wants otherwise, I will just assume that the resolution is talking about fences on borders.
2) "US borders" means on the edge of The Federal Government of the United States (USFG) owned territory. The definition of border allows us to go between country, state, and province, among other things, but since US is there to modify border, then the phrase then comes to mean the US border with other nations (and with the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but I don't think that part will be relevant in the debate).

Value: Morality
Morality is defined as "the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct" by dictionary.com. Morality is also what the resolution asks of us – should we, or should we not build a fence on US borders? The topic also includes the word "anywhere" on the end, meaning that the debate shouldn't be focused on what specific plan can build what type of fence on what place on what border, but rather, why we ought to build a fence in the first place. Of course, there's plenty of ways to achieve what is right, and in this debate I'll be using….

Value Criterion: Anti-Separatism
My usage of this word is something I cannot find in dictionary.com or en.wikipedia.org, though I'm told postmodernism talks about it a lot. Separatism is defined as the belief of separation, based on any number of things, some of the biggest ones being race, religion, nationality and creed. (Therefore, Anti-Separatism is against that belief) If we study human conflicts in history, even just the biggest ones, separatism is almost always a major influence to begin a conflict, and is usually there to keep a conflict going. We can see this in warfare, where propaganda is ALWAYS made and everything possible is done to dehumanize "the enemy". A conflict cannot continue unless the mindset perpetuated is a "them versus us" one; the flame won't burn if we see our opponent the same as us. This is why any civil war is difficult: People you used to identify with are now "the enemy". Suddenly, those people, "they're trying to kill you". People that used to seem human to you, people that you would never even THINK of harming before… suddenly it's now okay to do the unthinkable to them. That's what wars tell us, and that's what makes war: Separatism. Separatism is the root cause of all harm that man intentionally causes to his fellow man. If we all saw each other as equals, we wouldn't harm one another. (I'm going to assume that we all accept the notion of human rights and human dignity, if the CON asks for a link then I'll provide one.) Since separatism leads to and sometimes is the only reason for the violation of human rights and human dignity, and since we all deserve those two things, if I can prove that not building a fence on the US border helps Anti-Separatism, then I link to morality and therefore show that we should not build a fence, then you vote PRO.

My sole contention is that building a fence on the US border is a manifestation of separatism. At best, it shows that the United States doesn't want anybody coming into their country, and at worst, it shows that the United States thinks it's better than its neighbors. The land that mainland US is currently on didn't even belong to the US, NATIVE Americans lived here. There was a native american proverb, and I can't remember what book it was from because I heard it in third or fourth grade, and it went like this: "How can man own land? It makes as much sense as owning the sky or owning the sea..." Now, I'm not saying that suddenly all Americans should move out of where they live right now and go "find their own place", but rather that we shouldn't build fences on borders with other countries. It's not our land, it's not anyone's land, we're NOT better than other people, the only difference we have is the difference that anyone and everyone has - we all have one of the infinite combination of experiences we've had in our own lifetimes, and the .1%-.4% of gene difference..... All of which are irrelevant if we compare that to our similarities. By not building a fence on US borders, it helps the cause of anti-separatism – we show that we're open to the world, not closed to it.
nini722

Con

nini722 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
Korezaan

Pro

Extend everything.

I await a response from my opponent on why the resolution should be negated.
nini722

Con

Hello, I apologize for forfeiting Round 1. I was away and had no computer access. So here goes:

Intro:

I agree with Pro's assessment of the resolution and the definitions that has has provided.

Rebuttal:

My opponent's first point is that separatism leads to war, and therefore a fence that promotes separatism promotes conflict and thus you should vote Pro. I have 2 arguments against this. First, there are a lot of other causes to war than just separatism which he claims is the "root cause of all harm that man intentionally causes to his fellow man." His assumption is not true; imperialism, militarism, money, power and military alliances are just a few other examples of what has caused wars in the past. These causes are far more prevalent than the example he has provided.

Moving on to my opponent's self-proclaimed SOLE contention, he argues, "building a fence on the US border is a manifestation of separatism. At best, it shows that the United States doesn't want anybody coming into their country, and at worst, it shows that the United States thinks it's better than its neighbors." This is blatantly untrue. I will discuss why it is untrue when I begin listing my very own contentions.

Finally my opponent attempts to utilize the argument that as Americans we do not have the RIGHT to build a border fence, because technically Native Americans inhabited this country first, and figuratively nobody can 'own' land. This is absurd. First, I was born in America. That makes me a Native American. By that logic, this land is as much mine as it was Pocahontas's.

Second, the USA definitely owns the land within its borders. You can spew hippie quotes all you want about mother earth, but the fact is that the USA (tax payers) not only pay to live on this land, but we, as Americans, also protect it, secure it, and are held responsible for what happens within it. That makes this land very much ours. If you disagree, you are saying that when you buy a house, the property you bought and maintain is not really yours. Figuratively one might agree, but literally, everybody knows that you would be responsible for what happened on your property because you are the property OWNERS.

Contentions:

To prove why a fence should be built around U.S. borders, I will include facts that describe the current problem, and reasons why a border fence would be the most appropriate solution.

First, the January 2005 Bear Sterns report estimates that there are over 20 million illegal immigrants living within the borders of the United States. If you think this is not a problem, consider the amount of money it costs this country to illegally house them in our home. Tax payers have spent upwards of 10 billion dollars in California alone to cover the costs of things like education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens. Now even if my opponent does not mind paying higher taxes to support the illegal immigrants that don't pay ANY taxes, my opponent is not a representative of the entire nation, and his beliefs should not speak for the rest of the country. This is especially true since our founding fathers fought hard against increasing taxation; how would they feel if our very own tax dollars were being spent on people from another country? It'd be the American Revolution all over again, but this time, we'd be revolting against ourselves.

Now as my opponent pointed out, most of us are probably descendants of immigrants. Afterall, the United States is the melting pot of the world. However the difference is that most of our ancestors were not ILLEGAL immigrants. They probably passed through Ellis Island, were inspected and approved, and were therefore held accountable for all of the responsibilities of a U.S. citizen the second they stepped foot out of those doors and onto American soil. They were not given any hand-outs, so why should illegal immigrants from today have that privilege?

Additionally, illegal immigrants manage to find work while living in our states. That's unfortunate for the 1.62 million Americans actively seeking work, but who are currently unemployed. Not only are these illegal aliens taking American jobs, but they are also not being subjected to an income tax which every other citizen is mandated to pay. Additionally, since my opponent wants to talk about human rights, consider the fact that most immigrants are paid well under minimum wage. Thus they are working hard for less than is lawfully permissable in the United States. If nothing else, a border fence should be built around this country because of all of the illegal activity that it would police. What is the point of establishing laws if people are allowed to break them left and right?

For now I'd like to shift my attention to a few other problems regarding insecure borders. First, people are not the only thing smuggled into this country. With them comes a lot of illegal drugs, including harmful narcotics from South America. If this country truly supports the War on Drugs, then the first step is taking the initiative to make it harder for drugs to be smuggled in. Next I'd like to discuss illegal immigrants other than Mexicans or OTMs as they are called. Between 2007 and 2008, over 450 OTMs have been apprehended including those from Angola, Jordan, Pakistan, Yemen and - you guessed it - Afghanistan. Which brings me to my final point: national security.

While Mexicans may be generally harmless (other than milking our economy dry), unsecure borders means that individuals from ANY nation can potentially enter this country rather easily. If we want to employ a War on Terror, the first step (again) is to secure our borders from our enemies. Considering that we have instigated a VERY unpopular war, and have thus made enemies all over the globe, it is in our best interest to ensure that not only people, but also weapons used for violence and other forms of chemical warfare be stopped from entering our country.

Now that I have pointed out all of the valid problems facing this country today regarding illegal immigration, I would like to discuss the best possible solution to these problems: building a border fence. While I admit that no solution is flawless, it is clear that the most appropriate action to be taken would be to make it infinitely harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. by land. Now I am not advocating for a Berlin like wall to be built around our country and keep American citizens fenced in like prisoners. Rather I am proposing obstacles to be overcome in ordr to enter our country. Examples (taken from other supporters) include a ditch, coiled barbed wire, sturdy wire fences with censors, a smooth strip of sand to detect footprints, and closed circuit TV cameras and motion detectors.

Building a border fence is the best possible solution for several reasons. First, simply adding more border agents won't work. We currently have 11,000 people patrolling the Mexican-American border; to be effective, we'd need about 200,000 agents which is way too costly, not to mention a waste of valuable resources. But speaking of cost-effectiveness, this state of the art fence would only cost between 4 and 8 billion dollars to build. That's tens of billions of dollars LESS than we as tax payers currently spend on illegal immigrants. And finally, legal trade, tourism and commerce would not be made impossible via check points that allow people and goods to pass.

Conclusion:

As you can see, securing our boders is NOT about separatism. My opponent claims that at best it gives off the impression that we do not anybody entering our country, and at worst, it portrays us as racist elitests. That is simply untrue. Securing our borders is about what is fair for out very own law abiding and tax paying citizens, and for safety and protection not only abroad but right here on our very own soil.
Debate Round No. 2
Korezaan

Pro

Framework, Line by line, Separatism, Summary

Note: I will not be separating any of the biggest issues from the line by line except for Separatism, which will come near the end.

Darn the 8,000.

FRAMEWORK

My opponent agreed at the beginning of her R1 that my assessment of the resolution is true, and then goes onto refutes one aspect: Separatism. Since silent is consent and since she didn't attack any part otherwise, that means she agrees to the rest of my framework. This means that the value of Morality is the only thing that matters in the round.

Jose Saramago wrote in his book Blindness that "if we cannot live entirely like human beings, at least let us do everything in our power not to live entirely like animals." I realize that we're all separatist to some extent, but my point is that we should do everything in our power to prevent us from being more separatist. My opponent has not refuted the warrants to separatism in my value criterion, so therefore my VC still stands as valid. As long as I reach the VC of Anti-Separatism, it links to Morality, and since morality is the value in this round, as long as I reach it then I win the debate.

LINE BY LINE

"His assumption"

1) All of the examples she lists are separatism. The basic belief of separatism is that we see others different from ourselves, so we can easily dehumanize them and therefore start conflicts. Militarism, military alliances and power all fit that description to the letter. Power and money are also separatist because people in power and the rich see themselves as different from, say, the homeless. And imperialism. It says "I'm better than you, so I'ma take your country over". Fits the description as well.

"First"

2) Pocahontas didn't own this land; refer to "proverb" in R1. GAME OVER.

"Second"

3) Just because in the status quo it's "true" doesn't justify anything. We are talking about how things should be, not how they are. This is true because the value for this round is morality.
4) Her arg just shows how we don't own this land. If we actually owned this place we wouldn't have to pay CONTINUOUSLY for it. I own my Papermate G-Force pencil; I don't have to pay for it. I own my iPod, I don't have to pay continuously for it. We don't "own" this land… we're more like renting it. From somebody that doesn't own it. Which means we don't own it. We just live on it.
5) Legality does not link to morality. We used to have slavery as a law. We used to have "Only landowning white males can vote" as a law. None of those are moral.

"To prove"

6) The resolution doesn't specify timeframe, therefore anything she says that applies specifically to our current situation doesn't attack the principle of a wall itself and therefore the points won't matter.

"First"

7) Money doesn't link to morality.
8) Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy.
9) Genetic fallacy.

"They"

10) Just because I was yelled at as a kid doesn't mean I should yell at my kid. Same thing here; just because we didn't get it doesn't mean others shouldn't get it.

"Additionally"

11) Minimum wage is nontopical.
12) Her last line is an Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy.

"For now"

13) How bout let's not have wars?
14) She doesn't tell us how a wall stops drugs.
15) And she can't tell us, because that would be a new argument.
16) Do we even have a border with Afghanistan?

"While"

17) She's bringing up all these points, trying to link it to a debate about a fence… and I think that's fine but she simply does not provide links and warrants.
18) Stop weapons from entering our country? http://www.iht.com...

"Now, Building"

19) No link to VC of Anti-Separatism. So none of it matters.
20) No link to Value of Morality. So none of it matters.

SEPARATISM

"As you can see, securing our bo[r]ders is NOT about separatism."

Hmm well let's see. Oh yes, this is the best way.
I shall pull reasons for why it's ALL ABOUT separatism… straight out of her case.
Ready? Start back at the top.

"But the fact is that[…]this land is very much ours."

We're separated from Mexicans and Canadians because of a freakin' line. This is one of the original issues of separatism I described in R1, called "nationality".

"Illegal aliens"

The examples only get better from here on out. Just look at the wording. We call people that aren't of our nationality – an arbitrary thing – "aliens". Et tu, ET?

"Illegal immigrants[…]left and right?"

How can something be "an American job"? How can a job be reserved for people of a specific nationality? It's just like denying black men to be in administrative positions…. Oh wait we do that all the time!

"While Mexicans may generally be harmless (other than milking our economy dry)"

Our economy? There is no economy that's specific to one nation. It's a global economy; nations all trade with each other. And then Nini says ‘generally harmless'. I don't know about any of you, but that makes Mexicans sound like INSECTS. What the f….

How separatist is that?

"Our enemies"

We don't see these "enemies" as human. If we saw them as human, we would think of killing them just as we would think of killing our grandma or our childhood friends – we simply wouldn't think of it. However, once our perceptions of others is not "us", but "them"… then atrocities can be justified. That is the horror of Separatism. And that is why we need to do everything in our power to prevent ourselves from being even more separatist.

Here's how we start.

Don't build the wall.

SUMMARY

Nini first agrees to my framework except for separatism, in which she refutes that there are other reasons for which wars are started. However, all of her examples ARE separatism (1) so I can link back into morality. Since she didn't attack the framework otherwise, the VC of Anti-Separatism stands. My case at this point pulls through, since she doesn't refute the warrants at all.

She attempts to prove how we own this land, but the only thing she really does is show we pay the USFG for the land (4). This means though, we're renting the land from the USFG, an entity that Nini never mentioned. She cannot attempt to argue how the USFG owns the land either, as it would be a new argument (15).

The resolution did not specify a timeframe, so any arg that does not attack the principles and values behind building a wall isn't topical (6). But since all of her points are from the Status Quo (3), none of it matters. The legality doesn't matter either, as legality does not define morality (5).

Her attempts to appeal to your pocketbook should be ignored. Money does not link to morals (7).

She does quite a few times in her case the fallacy Appeal to Consequences, which basically says "If the result of an argument sounds good, then it must be true." (12).

Well, we all like pretty arguments.

However, she simply does not warrant them (17).

LEVELS
1) None of her arguments fly, as they are not warranted and many of them are fallacies.
2) The ones that fly have been knocked out of the debate.
3) Then they were hammered into the ground by "Status Quo", "Legality", "Money", and "Timeframe", as pretty much all of her arguments are about the present day and its issues.
4) The only hope she has left is to take out the framework of Value-Morality and VC-Anti-Separatism. But since all her refutations against it have been turned, the debate is then weighed on who links into Anti-Separatism best.
5) Nini claims that it isn't about separatism, but her points themselves say otherwise.
6) My sole contention clean extends throughout the entire debate, and links to the VC.
7) The VC links to the Value, which ultimately determines who wins the debate.

I urge an affirmative ballot.
nini722

Con

1. Pro presented morality as the value of this debate. So, a border fence should not be built anywhere on US borders because it is immoral. His reasoning as to why his value stands is separatism. By nullifying his claims regarding the border fence and separatism, I have effectively argued against his value of MORALITY as well, since separatism is the only criterion he has offered to support the value.

The belief OF separation and the belief IN separation are two different things. The belief OF separation (the agreed upon definition of separatism) states that one believes separation exists, not that one believes IN it. Separation between groups has existed since the beginning of humanity. It has nothing to do with borders, fences, or border fences; separatism has existed before all of these things. It is illogical to conclude that a border fence would create this separation (because the separation is inherent and already there), or assume that NOT building a border fence would stop or limit separatism.

Just because we see ourselves different from others does not mean that we will devalue them and/or start a war. In fact, even if we conclude that separatism was the belief IN separation based on things such as culture, my point is still upheld - people in the US can believe that our laws and values are greater than others, yet we have not isolated ourselves from other countries, nor have we gone to war over these ideals. So I have proved that it was not separatism itself that has led to war, but rather the specific factors that I have provided (eg. militarism, imperialism, etc.).

2. I contested that I own this land just as much as Pocahontas did. Pro responded with this snarky comment - "Pocahontas didn't own this land; refer to 'proverb' in R1. GAME OVER." First, the GAME OVER was completely unnecessary and somewhat abusive to the formality and mutual respect of this debate. Second, if Pocahontas (Native Americans) didn't own this land, then what was the purpose of including them in the debate at all? Third, why should Pro's obscure proverb, rooted in opinion, even matter? I have provided FACTS to prove my side.

If Americans do not own the land within US borders, what gives us the right to issue property taxes? If we do not have the right to build a border fence because this land is not ours to build on, then how/why can we morally build other things? Pro did not respond to my point "the USA (tax payers) not only pay to live on this land, but we, as Americans, also protect it, secure it, and are held responsible for what happens within it. That makes this land very much ours."

To continue/elaborate on a previous point, the false logic put forth by Pro essentially agrees that I have every right to move into Pro's house if I so choose; the space in which he lives should be communal regardless of whether or not he owns/pays for it, since the land that it's built on really does not belong to him or anyone in the first place.

3. A) The value for this round is morality, so we should be discussing the way things should be (regarding ownership) - not how they are.

In other words, Pro is saying that people should NOT be able to own land/property. How is that moral? He has not included any reasoning to support why we shouldn't.

B) "If we actually owned this place we wouldn't have to pay CONTINUOUSLY for it."

We don't. We pay for its protection and safety (military), and services that protect the rights of citizens (government), not the land itself. Ex: you can buy a TV and own it. But in order for that TV to work, you must pay for the electricity to power it, and sometimes the cable that you may be watching. This analogy speaks volumes against his argument.

C) "Legality does not link to morality."

Not all of our laws have been moral, but to say that they have no link is a blatant lie. Murder is against the law for no other reason than because people believe that it is immoral; this can be said about countless other laws, such as theft or assault. Laws DO have to do with THIS DEBATE.

4. "The resolution doesn't specify timeframe, therefore anything she says that applies specifically to our current situation doesn't attack the principle of a wall itself and therefore the points won't matter."

This is ridiculous. Pro can't just claim that my points don't matter. Not only is this abusive, but my opponent is also wrong. The resolution does in fact specify a time frame - the word "should" indicates the future. Therefore in terms of the future, the only evidence we have to draw a conclusion on must be based on what we know in the present. And presently, our country faces all of the problems that I have included in my contentions, therefore not only do they matter, but they are of utmost importance in terms of this debate.

Tax payers are being charged tens of millions of dollars due to the influx of illegal immigrants. To say that money has nothing to do with morality is false; one can note people "mooching" off of others without contributing is in fact immoral, because it places an unfair burden onto some.

I wrote, "They [former immigrant ancestors] were not given any hand-outs, so why should illegal immigrants from today have that privilege?" His response was, "Just because we didn't get it doesn't mean others shouldn't get it." So Pro is advocating for free hand-outs to illegal immigrants at tax payer's expense... however he doesn't include why this should be so.

Illegal immigrants are hired to work for less than is mandated by federal law via the Minium Wage. His simple response is "Minimum wage is nontopical." Clearly I spent time noting why minimum wage does in fact have to do with the debate (it relates to illegal work/retribution - something a border fence would essentially police/minimize), I deem it fairly topical and to dismiss it without any reasoning should only mean that this point among many others goes to me.

I mentioned the War on Drugs - he says "How bout let's not have wars?" Um, what? How does that relate to the resolution? And he calls ME nontopical? He claims I have not shown how a border fence would diminish illegal drugs. That is untrue; I mentioned that this fence would make it harder for illegal drugs to be SMUGGLED IN, and in my description of what a border fence would entail, I included how.

Pro says "Do we even have borders with Afghanistan?" Uh, seriously? Obviously a terrorist can enter a lesser developed country like Mexico and enter the US with more ease than from coming in directly through us. These terrorists are armed with the weapons I was discussing in terms of keeping them out of this country. So his link regarding US weapons output is really irrelevant, as is most of his rebuttal.

Finally Pro claims that my facts regarding why we should build a border fence are irrelevant, including my description of what a border fence would entail and WHY IT IS THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION. He says this has nothing to do with HIS value criterion, so it's irrelevant. That makes absolutely no sense. He is saying that I am not able to present my own argument in a debate, and instead only discuss his. Pro is CLEARLY mistaken, and has failed to respond to any of my points regarding those matters. So, I have won all of them.

So from my opponent's arguments, we can gather that he advocates for absolutely no separation whatsoever between the US and every other country (afterall, we are separated from Canada and Mexico by a "freakin line" and supposedly the US economy doesn't exist because only a global economy does... lol). If you agree with him, then feel free to only accept the arguments presented in this debate based on separatism. If you disagree, then consider all of my points, and you will see how Pro has been clearly defeated despite my unavoidable missed round.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by faye_seventeen17 9 years ago
faye_seventeen17
what's this?

COPY-PASTE thingy?
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
-- She does discuss paying for the land and what we can build on it in R2 when she says:

"The fact is that the USA (tax payers) not only pay to live on this land, but we, as Americans, also protect it, secure it, and are held responsible for what happens within it. That makes this land very much ours..."

-- She does continue/elaborate on a previous point (FROM R2) regarding moving into your house, because in R2 she wrote, "If you disagree, you are saying that when you buy a house, the property you bought and maintain is not really yours..."

-- Her "laws DO have to do with this debate" comment is a direct response to your allegation that they didn't in R3.

-- Regarding the link between money and morality, she didn't bring that up specifically in R2 because YOU didn't bring it up until R3. Again it was a direct response to something you just said.

-- Again, a response from your R2 argument. Besides, you CAN write new sentences in R3 as long as new arguments are not introduced. Con didn't include any new arguments; just clarification on a few points (i.e. the distinction between believing of and in something, or a response to your VC).
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Well in R2 she said she agreed with your definition. All she did in R3 was clarify what that definition meant; she didn't have to write it in R2 because it was assumed that once agreeing upon a definition, both parties are aware of what it states. There is no way that you can argue that the belief OF something and the belief IN something are 2 different things. So really I think she played that off quite brilliantly.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 9 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Keep arguing this in the comments - I stopped reading when I realized they were arguments - and I'll drop you for cheating.

3 rounds according to the rules. Not 3 rounds and comments.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"If Americans do not own the land within US borders, what gives us the right to issue property taxes? If we do not have the right to build a border fence because this land is not ours to build on, then how/why can we morally build other things?"

Never mentions this in R2.

"To continue/elaborate on a previous point, the false logic put forth by Pro essentially agrees that I have every right to move into Pro's house if I so choose; the space in which he lives should be communal regardless of whether or not he owns/pays for it, since the land that it's built on really does not belong to him or anyone in the first place."

Doesn't talk about this in R2.

"Laws DO have to do with THIS DEBATE."

She never provided the link in R2.

"To say that money has nothing to do with morality is false; one can note people "mooching" off of others without contributing is in fact immoral, because it places an unfair burden onto some."

Didn't provide the link between money and morality in R2.

"He says this has nothing to do with HIS value criterion, so it's irrelevant. That makes absolutely no sense. He is saying that I am not able to present my own argument in a debate, and instead only discuss his. Pro is CLEARLY mistaken, and has failed to respond to any of my points regarding those matters. So, I have won all of them."

That wasn't said in R2 either.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
In R3:

"The belief OF separation and the belief IN separation are two different things"

She did not say that in R2.
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Korezaan,

Like which ones? Just out of curiosity. Cuz I didn't notice any.
Posted by awesome 9 years ago
awesome
OMG This goes on forever!!
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Nini finished off with a ton of new arguments.

But whatever.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Back at ya, just so you know to look in junk perhaps.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Korezaannini722Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
Korezaannini722Tied
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 freedom9 9 years ago
freedom9
Korezaannini722Tied
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 paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
Korezaannini722Tied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
Korezaannini722Tied
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 huntertracker6 9 years ago
huntertracker6
Korezaannini722Tied
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 nini722 9 years ago
nini722
Korezaannini722Tied
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 CP 9 years ago
CP
Korezaannini722Tied
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 Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Korezaannini722Tied
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 josh_42 9 years ago
josh_42
Korezaannini722Tied
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