The Instigator
mindjob
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
mmadderom
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/15/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,009 times Debate No: 1829
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (15)

 

mindjob

Pro

In light of Jack Kevorkian speaking at my school tonight, I offer up this debate to anyone who wishes to take it on.

Bottom line, physician-assisted suicide should be legal. It is absurd that anyone or any group should have the authority to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own life with regard to this issue. I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce their morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease. The overly moralistic person is not feeling the pain. They will not be affected in any way whether the dying person takes their own life or if they needlessly prolong their suffering. Yet, they insist on using the government to enforce their morality on people they don't even know. A dying person, suffering from cancer or some other horrific illness that promises nothing but a slow, painful death, should be able to die on their own terms, with dignity.

I eagerly await someone to accept my open challenge.
mmadderom

Con

There is one very simple problem with your position. The Hippocratic oath, by which all medicine in this country is practiced, strictly and definitively forbids it. In order to legalize physician assisted suicide you would literally have to re-write the basic code by which all physicians are bound.

You argue that morality has no place in medicine, while the exact opposite is true. There is no medicine without morality, else all doctors would be little more than snake oil salesmen. Morality is required as a basic code of being a physician moreso than any other profession save for a preacher.

Let's visit your theory for just a moment and assume it should be legal. On what basis or code should the doctor be bound by while making the determination of which patients to "help" in this manner? Should it be the Kevorkian method, that is whatever the physician himself believes? Should there be a set of guidelines on when it's acceptable and when it's not? Should it be required to get a second opinion from a consulting physician? How about from a psychologist? Do the ramifications of a suicide on family, particularly dependents, get taken into account? What about the clause in most life insurance policies that explicitly state they don't pay upon suicide?

It's clear that some shysters masquerading as caring physicians would quickly take advantage of such a situation for the sake of profit rather than mercy. That is to say, if the first 5 docs say no, you don't qualify, the 6th one will say sure, but not until after the check clears. He'll likely have on staff equally immoral folk with necessary degrees to back him up.

I am quite certain that Mr. Kevorkian eloquently stated his position on the matter and he obviously swayed you to his way of thinking, however when one looks at the situation through more than his very narrow viewpoint, it becomes quite obvious there are many obstacles that Jack doesn't adequately address on his lecture tour.
Debate Round No. 1
mindjob

Pro

In your response, you cite the Hippocratic Oath as a reason why physician-assisted suicide should stay illegal and claim that all medicine in this country is practiced by it. Would this be the same Hippocratic Oath that also says a physician must treat the person who taught him medicine as a parent, as well as teach others this "art' for free? If doctors are really bound by the Hippocratic Oath, then every doctor who takes any pay from a medical school that charges students to attend there would be violating the oath. Later on in the oath, it says that doctors will "not use the knife". So I guess surgeons are violating the oath as well. And the part that everyone does know, the "first, do no harm" (and apparently the only part you are aware of), it says "I will keep them from harm and injustice". Since the rest of the oath has been subjectively revised so as to keep up with the times, I can and will easily say that keeping patients from harm includes keeping them from needless pain and suffering. In addition, keeping patients from injustice can and should also mean keeping other people's values and morals off of an individual's or a family's personal and private decision.

The fact of the matter is that the Hippocratic oath has been amended significantly, and is often not even used. In the 1970's, many schools abandoned the oath because of its archaic principles. My guess is that many medical schools dropped it because of its call to teach medicine for free and only to men. Other schools use some other versions of the Hippocratic Oath, or other oaths developed by other doctors or medical associations. In short, claiming that the Hippocratic Oath is universally accepted, universally used and universally adhered to is simply false.

I never claimed that morality has no place in medicine, just not a morality that is being imposed by people outside of the doctor/patient/family relationship. Go back and read what I wrote in round 1. I said "I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce THEIR morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease". Unless you are the person dying, or a family member of yours is the one dying, you should have no say in what decision they make. A physician should use his own moral code to direct his actions regarding euthanasia, but many doctors feel that such a practice should be allowed, especially when they are forced to watch a person waste away from a terminal disease. If a doctor has a problem with it, he or she can refuse to perform the procedure, the same as any doctor with performing an abortion.

The issues surrounding guidelines and legal standards are the strongest parts of your argument. Even so, it doesn't seem to bother people in Oregon. They don't seem to have any trouble figuring it out. While I could use Oregon as an example and leave it at that, I will instead try to give common sense answers to your questions.

If we went by the "Kevorkian method", as you call it, that doesn't seem to be such a bad thing. By Kevorkian's account from last night, he only assisted 1 in 5 that came to him for help because the others did not fit a medical need. That's a lot of discretion for someone you seem to feel is blood thirsty.

If there would be any guidelines used, perhaps the guidelines that doctors follow when they determine that someone does not stand to gain from any further medical intervention and recommend hospice care. That seems common sense enough to me. In addition, most people have seen so many doctors by the time they reach this point that the requirement to get a second opinion would have been reached long ago.

There should be no need for a psychologist if a person has been determined to be terminal and he wishes to end his life on his own terms. To require a psychological workup would be an unnecessary governmental intrusion, much like what we have to deal with now.

The concerns of the family are taken into account by the patient himself. But this is one of the points of allowing euthanasia: to help keep patients from getting to the point where they can't make their own decisions. If they are incapacitated, then living wills and advanced directives override family desires anyway. For example, if a patient has ordered that they are DNR, or Do Not Resuscitate, the directive overrides the family in the event of a medical emergency. If there are no directives or living wills, then the family should be able to make the decision after consulting with the doctors in charge of their loved one's care, just as they do now. In fact, making euthanasia legal would make episodes like Terry Schaivo much better for everyone involved because they would have access to physicians who would be able to end her life much more humanely than simply pulling her feeding tube. She didn't have to die like that. It was conservatives and their use of the government to impose the laws that we have that starved her to death.

If someone is determined to be terminal by at least two doctors, then if euthanasia were legal, their terminal status should invalidate the no-suicide clause. In my view, and in a view that I feel would hold up legally, physician-assisted suicide should be no different than when someone desires to be listed as DNR. The doctors and nurses could prolong a patient's life by intervening in a medical crisis, but their choice to be DNR hastened their death from the crisis, much the same as assisted-suicide. As I know from personal experience, insurance companies and pensions still pay out when a family member dies while being listed as DNR.

These are doctors we're talking about, not lawyers. I'm not sure how many "shysters" are out there running around, but I'm sure there aren't that many. The procedure would not take a lot of time for the doctor, nor would it take much in the way of equipment or drugs. So in relation to other procedures that the doctor could be spending his time on, assisting someone to commit suicide would probably not be very lucrative for the doctor. If there are a lot of shysters running around trying to milk money out of desperate people, then I think we have a much larger problem in our medical system that needs to be addressed ASAP.

I actually didn't get to see him speak last night. I couldn't get a ticket to go and was left to read about it this morning in the paper. But I have supported this position for a long time now. I supported it before Terry Schaivo and before my dad very nearly avoided a situation much like hers. If my family had faced the same kind of intrusive intervention that Michael Schaivo faced, I would be a lot more militant about it than I am now. Fortunately for me, though, I don't have to go through the same thing he did to empathize.
mmadderom

Con

As it is clear from your very long and well thought out 2nd argument that you are obviously a disciple of Jack Kevorkian and his reasoning I'm going to approach this from a different direction if that's ok.

I've already briefly addressed the problems with allowing a man to decide when another man/woman "should" be allowed to die but I'd like to examine that issue further.

To do so makes the process completely arbitrary. Dr. Jack says no so you go to Dr. John. He says no, you go to Dr. Allen and so on until you get the answer you want. This is already practiced by "patients" who are drug addicts, what makes you think it wouldn't become widespread among the suicidal?

I believe you said somewhere in that dissertation that Kevorkian turned down 5 for every 1 he accepted or some similar % anyhow. OK, so HE arbitrarily gets to decide who lives and who dies? You don't see the problem with this? As long as the decider has a doctorate it's O.K. with you? I literally know a man with a doctorate who is having trouble paying this months rent, should HE be allowed to decide? (dude wants to die, I need the money. Who loses?) If you think this wouldn't play into the situation at all you are quite naive.

It seems that most of what you wrote was a glowing support of Jack Kevorkian and his "cause". Yet you fail to address standards and practices other than stating "if they are diagnosed as terminal". That's your be-all end-all standard, eh?

Let me tell you a personal story. My father was diagnosed with a "terminal" illness at age 13. He was in constant pain and the Doctors were certain he had less than a year to live. Obviously, since I'm here to write this, that diagnosis was wrong. He did pass at age 58 after fathering and raising 3 children while living most of his life pain free. I tell this story only to illustrate but one of the problems with your fail safe reasons for allowing physician assisted suicide. You see, my father would have qualified under your vetting process when he was 13 years old.
Debate Round No. 2
mindjob

Pro

I don't know why you keep saying that the process is arbitrary, because it isn't. People are not arbitrarily moved to hospice care. That is a much more involved and arduous process among the patient, family and doctors than some doctor simply saying "Ok, you're going to die now because I've arbitrarily made the decision to let you die without having some medical reason to back it up".

Doctor shopping the likes of Rush Limbaugh hopping around trying to buy amounts of Oxycontin that would ordinarily kill an elephant only happens because such a thing is illegal. Once euthanasia was made legal, the only reason why a doctor would say no is because they medically don't fit a need for it or the doctor doesn't personally believe in it. I, personally, don't believe that a doctor should be allowed to deny someone requesting it. Doctors who do believe in physician-assisted suicide have thus far been forced to watch patients degenerate over long periods of time until a painful death, so why should doctors who don't believe in it be able to skirt their obligation to their patients and deny them the care they deserve?

If there is doctor shopping to find someone who will assist someone who wouldn't fit the need for hospice care, then that will be illegal in the same way as doctor shopping for large quantities of controlled drugs is illegal now. It might happen regardless, but to say that small problem should derail euthanasia from becoming legal is ridiculous. If you do think euthanasia should be kept illegal because of the threat of doctor shopping, then we should re-evaluate a number of privileges that doctors have now that might potentially be shopped around for.

Are you talking about doctorates or physicians? I take all my classes from Ph.D's, but none of them are physicians. If you are talking about all doctorates, then of course I wouldn't want your friend to help me or anyone commit suicide because they aren't an actual doctor. I wouldn't want my Public Policy professor helping anyone commit suicide. But actual doctors, with actual medical degrees, who actively practice medicine in a medical environment (so pretty much the "white coat" physician that everyone thinks of when you say "doctor) should be allowed to make that call. I figured that when we were talking about physician-assisted suicide, you knew I meant actual physicians and not anyone with just a doctorate. I might have been mistaken, but I doubt it.

That's a great story about your dad, but he wouldn't have been able to make the call himself since he wasn't 18, so it doesn't fit in this debate. Is there a possibility that some of the people who would opt for euthanasia would have perhaps pulled out of their illness, such as with your dad...maybe. There are stories of people waking up one morning and no longer having cancer, but this rarely ever happens and should not be counted on to happen with any regularity. Not only would they have to miraculously recover, which almost never happens, but that person would also have to have actually selected euthanasia, which is a personal choice many people will not make. Their suicide would also would have had to happen before they had their miraculous recovery, which presumably would not be a same-day kind of procedure. All of these things happening would make such an occurance incredibly unlikely. Thus, national policy should not be based off of something as unlikely as that, especially since the decision would be based on the individual patient's decision. Death penalty supporters don't seem to be very deterred by the much more likely possibility of putting an innocent person to death, and that's when the state is forcing the issue on the individual.
mmadderom

Con

I just have a couple of issues with your last argument and I'll leave it at that.

-By definition anyone with a doctorate is a doctor. But even limiting the decisions to licensed physicians in no way, shape, or form is adequate. There is quite a difference between an E.R. Doc and and oncologist, for example.

-The process IS arbitrary as long as there isn't a vetting process that would have to include a team of specialists all agreeing. A patient is only "terminal" when a doctor says so. Another Doc with the same exact training might disagree, a Doc with more specific training very often would.

-Doctor shopping for purpose of getting a 2nd opinion is completely legal. In this case the patient would simply get as many opinions as necessary until he gets the one he wants.

-The majority of cases where patients pull out of their illness aren't miraculous recovery, they are usually mis-diagnosis in the first place. The amount of cancer patients who are incorrectly told they are terminal is greater than you apparently realize, for example.

I was a training coordinator in a major hospital for 4 years. Doctors incorrectly diagnosing patients and over or under estimating the severity of their illness is very common. It would probably appall you the number of "medical" decisions that are made based on insurance coverage rather than best care of the patient. Expanding this out to doctors making decisions such as assisted suicide is a slippery slope best not navigated.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
there is a simple answer to all this debate etc ..

IT IS THEIR LIFE , IF THEY WANT TO DIE AND ARE SANE ENOUGH TO MAKE THE CHOICE AND ARE ABLE TO MAKE IT LET THEM . THERE LIFE THERE CHOICE !!!

how would you like it if you lived in extrme pain every day and you wanted to die but somebody wouldnt let you because they belive that it is morally wrong or " against the law " funny fact for euthanaisa as well .... back in the 1700's it was illegal to attempt suicide , the punishment for attempting suicide ?? execution lol ....
Posted by arzhur 8 years ago
arzhur
50. "Euthanasia" is, of course, derived from two Greek words meaning "pleasant
or painless death". This is one instance, among many in modern society, where a
good motive is supposed to make wrong things right. A merciful motive
(preventing pain or hardship) is held to make right something which, in itself and
in other circumstances, would be admitted to be wrong (putting an innocent
person to death).
(http://www.rcam.org...)
Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae and Pope John Paul II (March 25, 1995) have re-stated that the mission of the church is to celebrate human life, as the Gospel of life, that human life has a deeper meaning and beauty outside of what we see, that every human being must be respected, honored and loved, that we must praise and thank God for the gift of life.
Kailangang ibalik natin at pagtibayin sa lipunan ang sense of God, ang presensya at ang papel ng Diyos. Kung mawala ang sense of God, mawawala na rin ang sense of man's dignity and life. Ang bunga nito ay materialismo, na nagbubunga ng individualismo, utilitarianismo … at hedonism (EV 21-22).
‘Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as
wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a
rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan.'
----- The Vatican's ‘Declaration on Euthanasia.' 11
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I think people should be able to do what they want, but it's much more politically feasible to just limit physician-assisted suicide to terminally ill people. Families would be on board much more with someone avoiding an inevitable and diagnosed painful death, instead of someone single-handedly getting a doctor to help them kill themselves when they are perfectly healthy. In that case, the family would be more likely to sue or at least be totally opposed. You have to admit there is a distinct difference between someone diagnosed with incurable cancer and the rest of us perfectly healthy people trying to commit suicide.

It is the height of arrogance that someone else can keep someone from doing what they want with their own body. If the situation were somehow reversed and I was mandating that people had to get a doctor to help them kill themselves when they became terminally ill, that would be the height of arrogance too. But like with abortion, just because it's legal doesn't mean you have to use it. The option gets left up to the suffering person, which is why no one's morality is being imposed on anyone. Saying that someone's morality is imposed on someone else when we send murderers to jail is totally different from euthanasia, as per my arguments everywhere else in this debate. Murder, rape and every other crime you want to mention involve a perpetrator and a victim. Those criminals' morality inflicted harm on someone else without that person's consent. Euthanasia doesn't involve anyone who doesn't want to be a part of it. I can't help you if you can't see the difference in morality.
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
I never understood the argument that euthanasia is OK in the case where someone is going to die anyways. I mean, aren't we all going to die anyways? What makes someone with cancer more likely to die than me? It could be time frame, but then you're justifying abortion for old people as well.

I think you should remove that caveat and just say that anyone should have the right to do whatever they want with their own life -- including ending it.

I also have a huge problem with this statement: "I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce THEIR morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease."

Let's he honest here: allowing someone to commit suicide is 'your morality' and stopping them from doing so is 'his morality' either way, someone's 'morality' is going to be imposed on someone else. But, we impose 'our morality' on people all the time. We send murderers and pedophiles to jail without hesitation. Should we let them walk because 'their morality' says that these actions are ok? I highly doubt it.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Much more than 2% are in favor of euthanasia, that is.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I understand your point about government legislating morality, but the thing is that all of the issues you mentioned-stealing, murder, rape, etc.-involve a perpetrator and a victim. With euthanasia, the only perceived victim is the terminal person choosing his fate for himself. There really must be something said for an issue truly not affecting someone else. Even with your nudity example, others must bear witness to nudists walking down the street or mowing their lawn. Euthanasia would take place in the privacy of someone's home or in a hospital room, both outside the gaze of whoever might watch and take offense.

If someone is terminally ill, by the time they are ready to ask a doctor to help them die, they aren't working anymore because of their illness. As it is now, people who would be candidates for euthanasia are so sick they aren't working anyway. So with or without euthanasia, people in debt are dying without paying off their debts. Besides, euthanasia rests on the idea that people who are terminal, but otherwise in good shape (like those in the early stages of pancreatic cancer) still want to live a little more until they get too sick to travel or enjoy life while still being lucid enough to enjoy their family and loved ones around them. This might be one stipulation to being a candidate for euthanasia.

Your example of nudity and saying that a city might only be 2% nudists also doesn't follow because, while I already established that others are still affected by nudist activity, I would argue that much more than 2% are in favor of it. Over 60% believed the government had no right intervening with Terry Schiavo. Even if half of those support euthanasia, that's still a very sizeable majority.

Thanks for your vote, btw. :)
Posted by Kreuzian 9 years ago
Kreuzian
Even though I sort of disagree with Mindjob, I had to give him the point. He argued his points logically and clearly.

As for the issue itself, there was only one error Mindjob made, which was that "governments shouldn't legislate morality". This is not arguing a point, but rather stating an opinion, an odd one at that.

That is a contradiction, because all "law" is, is enforced codes of morality. Do not steal, do not murder, do not rape, pay your taxes, stand in line at the airport, all laws are FORCING morality on others.

You cannot argue that it doesn't affect society and strangers. Not in a welfare state.

What if he never paid back the $300,000 society's taxpayers invested in his education and health? What if he has massive debts to a bank?

It affects doctor/patient/family/bank/taxpayer.

And what methods do taxpayers have to input their opinion?

Answer: Fraudulent electronic voting. ;)

That said, as such a taxpayer, it is my view that keeping someone in severe PHYSICAL pain alive is cruel and unusual punishment.

BTW, take a city of 98% anti-nudists. Nudity is a moral opinion. You hurt no one, only their "moral dignity" by being nude. Should the 2% nudists be "forced" to wear clothes?

What if it's on their property? What gives you the "right"?

All law ever is, is enforced morality. There can be a moral case argued even for killing, so it is up to society to decide. If they determine it is self-defense, you go free. Etc.

The problem is we have a society with many religions, so there will never be a consensus on morality.

There should essentially be an inter-faith dialogue, establish common ground on certain issues, and leave all other ones up to individual cities, counties, and states.
Posted by inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
we will debate, but someone before you also wanted to debate and he asked first. So i will debate him first
Posted by inrainbows 9 years ago
inrainbows
we will debate, but someone before you also wanted to debate and he asked first. So i will debate him first
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
No apology necessary. It was a long read but you are allowed that much space so use all you like.

Good argument, BTW.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by becolourful 6 years ago
becolourful
mindjobmmadderomTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
mindjobmmadderomTied
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 james_y 8 years ago
james_y
mindjobmmadderomTied
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 C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
mindjobmmadderomTied
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 kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
mindjobmmadderomTied
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 ImAPanicBomb447 9 years ago
ImAPanicBomb447
mindjobmmadderomTied
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 govchapman 9 years ago
govchapman
mindjobmmadderomTied
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 adamh 9 years ago
adamh
mindjobmmadderomTied
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 Ozymandias 9 years ago
Ozymandias
mindjobmmadderomTied
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 brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
mindjobmmadderomTied
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