The Instigator
Evpietsch
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thett3
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Capitol punishment should be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,865 times Debate No: 21205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Evpietsch

Pro

Slogan: En eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Capitol punishment should be abolished because of a high possibility for error, the fact that it is an unethical practice, and its high cost.

1) Capitol punishment should be abolished because of its high possibility for error.
By ruthlessly killing people who are convicted, prosecutors are completely obliterating any hope of correcting their mistakes if it turns out the prosecutors were wrong.
According to a study done by Columbia Law School Professor James Liebman, 68 percent of all death verdicts reviewed from 1973-1995 were revised by courts due to serious error. Of those revisions, 82 percent ended in less harsh sentences, and 9 percent of those people were found innocent and eventually freed. Since capitol punishment was reintroduced in America in 1973, 99 death row inmates have been exonerated, raising questions about its validity and leading to mounting pressure among opponents for it to be scrapped or at least suspended. If these convicted people are sentenced to death, and then are later found to be innocent, the legal system has just murdered NINETY NINE people who didn't deserve to die. http://www.cbsnews.com...
Wrongful conviction is also present in modern times. According to the nonprofit Death Penalty Focus, there have been at least four men wrongfully killed in the past two years. Also, 139 men and women have been released from Death Row nationally… some only minutes away from execution. How many more might have been released, had then not been executed? We will never know… and that's just the problem. Examples of this include Troy Davis, executed despite the fact that, according to Amnesty International, all but two of the state's non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony and many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis. Another example is Cameron Todd Willingham, wrongfully executed under the charge of setting his house on fire and killing his three daughters. Just imagine the horror his parents must have felt, having lost all three beloved granddaughters and then having to watch their equally beloved son be executed! http://www.deathpenalty.org...
If an innocent person's life is taken, that is murder. Murdering innocent people is something that belongs within the confinement of the past. Slaughter belongs to war, and countries that oppress their people. We cannot continue a ruthless practice without looking deeper into our society and our values. Is this what is at the heart of America?

2) Capitol punishment should be abolished because it is way too expensive.
Capitol punishment is much more expensive than life in prison without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases.
According to deathpenaltyinfo.org, in the Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, it states that, "The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 dollars per year per inmate. With California's current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually." Also, using conservative rough projections, the Commission states that the annual costs of the present death row system to be $137 million per year. And that is JUST in California!
This is yours and my taxpayer money that goes toward murderers. Even worse, what if a person is innocent? That's millions of our money down the drain. If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of "Life Without the Possibility of Parole", which costs millions less, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on things like our $14 trillion debt, education, public safety programs, health services, the possibilities are endless.

3) Capitol punishment should be abolished because it is immoral.
Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". Most developed countries around the world recognized these rights have abolished capitol punishment or they are considering it.
According to Amnesty International, in 1977, only 16 countries had abolished capitol punishment for all crimes. As of December 2010 that figure stands at 96 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished capitol punishment in law or practice. In 2010, only 23 countries used capitol punishment. http://www.amnesty.org...
Deathpenalty.org lists the number of executions by country. In 2010, China led the world with over 1,000 executions, Iran had 252, North Korea had 60, Yemen had 53, followed by the US with 46. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
With capitol punishment in place, the US is consistent with countries that have horrible human rights histories with their people. Meanwhile, The European Union and the United Nations General Assembly have drafted rules to abolish capitol punishment. In order to keep up with democratic, modern, and civilized nations, it is neither wise nor moral for the U.S. to have capitol punishment in place.
thett3

Con

Thanks for the debate Pro. For clarity, I will assume that the resolution is US specific unless otherwise informed.


I'll first refute my Opponents case, then refute my own.

1. Innocence

Turn the Columbia Law study, this only shows that our current system works in protecting the innocent. Secondly, the study was taken in 1995, over 16 years ago. Pros given you no reason to believe that a legal document from made during the Clinton adminstration still appies today. Indeed what was once considered overwheming evidence no longer is, an example of this can be found in the so called CSI affect. Juries are now more hesitant to convict without overwhelming DNA or Forensic evidence[1]. That we can look back on older cases and free innocent people tells us that with modern science and technology, the risk of executing an innocent man is a thing of the past, or soon will be. Third, and most important, because of the need to be absolutely certain in a Death Penalty case, it makes the board of paroles and the innocence project to apply extra scrutiny to the cases; an innocent convicted to life without parole has a significantly slighter chance of walking free than someone sentenced to die ever does. Thus, you can turn this argument: because as long as innocents are still being convicted we need the Death Penalty to force ourselves to apply extra attention to the case. It should also be noted that if we take 3 years to kill someone, or 30 years we've still destroyed a life. There is no moral difference between accidentaly executing an innocent and locking someone in prison to die; we've destroyed their life either way.

My Opponent tries to argue thaat there have been "four men wrongfully killed in the past two years." while only citing two examples. I'll make a few responses-first, none of them have had their innocence recognized by the state, this is significant because the court system knows infinitely more about the cases than my opponets ideoligcally driven source ever will. With all due respect to my opponent, her misguided assumptions that she knows more about the individual cases than The Judge, Jury, 9th circuit of appeals, Board of Paroles and Pardons, Supreme Court of the United States, Governor of the executing state, and president of the United States, all of whom could cease the execution/overturn the sentence is woefully ignorant. The fact of the matter is that in every case where an "innocent" has died, literally every single person qualified to judge guilt or innocence has judged guilt. The guilt of Troy Davis and Cameron Willingham are completely seperate debates by themselves, but since those qualified to show guilt chose guilt, then we should assume they're guilty.

Besides, to this I say: so what? Every accidental death is a mistake, but the fundamental question is whether the benefits to society outweigh. How many thousands of people die each year from Car, Plane, and Train crashes? Yet we still use those, because the societal benefits outweigh. My oponents argument is a reason to tighten the evidence requirements to sentence someone to die, not an argument against Capital Punishment.

2. Cost

First, this argument fails becase you can't put a price tag on Justice, that's morally repungant. Secondly my opponents single source is from California of all places--the state with 400+ people on death row with a mere 13 executions in almost 40 years[2]. However this argument is even worse when you examine the methodology of these studies--my opponents evidence is quoted from DPIC, not the study itself. Dont buy this just because an anti death penalty think tank says its true. Further, these cost benefit analysis derive from mixing Death Row murderers with average prisoners which WILL NOT happen. It's comparing a medium cost prison to death row, obviously fallacious. We need to compare maximum security to death row if we want a cost analysis.

These ignore important factors anyway, like plea bargaining. Even a brutal murderer will often plead guilty to take a potential death sentence off the table, avoiding the cost of a trial entirely! It should be no doubt that a study from the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation found that over 50% of murder cases in Death Penality states resulted in a guilty plea, as opposed to only 40% in non deaath penalty states[3].

The Death Penalty is expensive because we choose for it to be. In fact, it might be cheaper even under that Status Quo; a study from PDP using data collected from the times found that while the up front costs of the Death Penalty is obviously larger, when you take into account the whole lifespan of a prisoner, LWOP is more expensive by an incredible 1.6 million[4].

3. Immoral

My Opponent starts with a quote from the UN declaration of human rights, for no apparent reason. If we are to go with that for our legal system we couldn't have imprisonment either because it violates a persons right to liberty and security of person. My opponent doesnt warrant this argument at all, theres no reason for you to believe the DP is immoral.

She then commits a correlation causation fallacy by saying that since unpopular nations use Capital Punishment, and abolition has become a recent trend, the US should abolish the Death Penalty. Unfortunately, this isn't an argument. Why does it matter who else uses the Death Penalty? The question is whether the US should use it, not whether other countries do.

==My Case==

1. Justice

I offer a theory of Justice as a metaphorical pendulum. The metaphor goes as follows: the "justice pendulum", when pushed, will swing to both sides in equal force. Anything else is a pervesion of Justice. Ideally, the pendulum would always remain in one stable position, however when an individual commits a crime and pushes it one direction, it must proportionally swing back. Thus, the only just way to deal with murder is proportionality, IE Eye for an Eye.

2. Saves lives

T
here have been many instances in our justice system where a murderer has reoffended, in fact a study from the U.S. Department of Justice finds that of prisoners released in 1994, 1.2% of those convicted of homicide were arrested for another homicide within three years of their release.[5]. This holds especially true for our most dangerous criminals, in 2009 8.6% of those on death row had a prior homicide conviction. Over 5% of those on death row committed their capital crime while in custody or during an escape.[6]. An execution forever deters any recidivism. Further, multiple studies have consistently found a deterrent effect: Westley Lowe writes[7]:

"By the beginning of the 1990s, however, states that wished to reimpose the ultimate penalty had fought their way through the endless thicket of appeals and restrictions imposed by the courts. In 1991, 14 murderers were executed while 2,500 waited on death row. By 1993 the figure had risen to 38 executions, then 55 in 1995, and 98 in 1999, a level not seen since the 1950s. At the same time, murder rates began to plummet—to 9.6 per 100,000 in 1993, 7.7 in 1996, and 6.4 in 1999, the lowest level since 1966. To put the matter simply, over the past 40 years, homicides have gone up when executions have gone down and vice versa."

If you value innocent life, you will pursue the Death Penalty in earnst and negate the resolution.

Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
3. http://www.cjlf.org...
4. http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...
5. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
6. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
7. Lowe, Wesley. "Consistent and Swift Application of the Death Penalty Reduces Murder Rates."



Debate Round No. 1
Evpietsch

Pro

"thett3"-
Thank you for accepting!
Also, thank you for the clarity, and yes, it is U.S. specific.

Counter- refutations:
1)
• "an innocent convicted to life without parole has a significantly slighter chance of walking free than someone sentenced to die ever does." You are failing to comprehend my simple logic. With life without parole, we can at least reverse a mistake, thus not "destroying their entire life." The person will still have the ability to live their life freely after released. However, if the person is put to death, there is no going back.
• "With all due respect to my opponent, her misguided assumptions that she knows more about the individual cases than The Judge, Jury, 9th circuit of appeals, Board of Paroles and Pardons, Supreme Court of the United States, Governor of the executing state, and president of the United States, all of whom could cease the execution/overturn the sentence is woefully ignorant." (First, the "with all due respect" at the beginning of this statement does not annul its rudeness. However, I forgive you because many people believe that insulting your opponent is part of debate, even if it shouldn't be. However, if I were you, I'd be careful because another user could take serious offense to this) Moving on, I believe it is quite funny how people switch around others' thoughts to make themselves look better. I am not assuming that the authorities have blundered; merely showing the facts that everyone is human, and mistakes are too easy to make. Who knows, perhaps more substantial evidence will show itself, proving the four to be innocent.
• "The guilt of Troy Davis and Cameron Willingham are completely seperate debates by themselves, but since those qualified to show guilt chose guilt, then we should assume they're guilty." No, we should NOT assume that these men are guilty. Authorities may be good at their jobs, but nonetheless, everyone is human, making mistakes too easy no matter the time period and advancement in technology. It is simple NOT RIGHT to ruthlessly kill innocent people!
• "Besides, to this I say: so what? Every accidental death is a mistake, but the fundamental question is whether the benefits to society outweigh. How many thousands of people die each year from Car, Plane, and Train crashes? Yet we still use those, because the societal benefits outweigh. My oponents argument is a reason to tighten the evidence requirements to sentence someone to die, not an argument against Capital Punishment." Your analogy is ridiculous. Cars, planes, and trains, do indeed provide multiple benefits for society. However, you failed to list any benefits capital punishment has to society that life without parole doesn't. In addition, you are wrong in stating that my argument is a reason to merely tighten evidence. Capital punishment should be abolished completely, eliminating chance for mistake even with "tighter evidence."

2)
• "You can't put a price tag on justice."
In the ideal world, justice wouldn't come with a price tag attached — seeing justice done would be important enough to pursue no matter what. We live in the real world, however, not an ideal world and in the real world justice comes with a price tag that we have to care about. The facts say that the death penalty is just too expensive for a country in such a debt.

• "from California"
No matter what state or overall inmates, it's the cost per inmate that counts. That won't sway no matter the state. The cost is simply too high than is necessary. We should put the money toward a more important cause such as our 15 TRILLION dollar debt that you failed to address.

• My opponent tries to argue that my source (deathpenaltyinfo.org) is not reliable because it is biased. This is a "dot org" site that is merely giving information by stating the exact facts of study done wit no bias. One could get the same evidence from the Fair Administration of Justice itself. The site is a reliable dot org and therefore did not sway the evidence. It's just an informational site, so its silly to say that it even has a bias to begin with.

• "guilty plea"
Your evidence said people sentenced to death are more likely to plea guilty than those not sentenced to death to avoid a costly trial? This is irrelevant. TRIAL is costly no matter death penalty or not. We cannot avoid that. Everything costs something. I am only saying that the act of the death penalty is more costly overall than life without parole.

• Lastly, in regards to the cost aspect, here is more evidence to back up the irrefutable claim that the death penalty is too expensive:
According to Amnesty International-
•A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)
•In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
(2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)
•In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case.
(Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)
• In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty.
(California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)
http://www.amnestyusa.org...

3)
• "She then commits a correlation causation fallacy by saying that since unpopular nations use Capital Punishment, and abolition has become a recent trend, the US should abolish the Death Penalty. Unfortunately, this isn't an argument. Why does it matter who else uses the Death Penalty? The question is whether the US should use it, not whether other countries do."
Let me explain the logic. It's like a math equation.
North Korea and Iran= corruption, no free rights, no freedom of speech, oppression, DEATH PENALTY
European Union= civilization, human rights, NO DEATH PENALTY
United States= civilization, human rights, DEATH PENALTY
It doesn't make sense, does it? Obviously, the U.S. should equal "no death penalty" if we want to be considered a fair, free, civilized nation. We should look the civilized countries as a model for proper living. It does matter very much who else has it. The U.S. is often slow in catching on with civil and modern policies. For example, slavery was abolished in civilized nations such as the UK long before it was banned in the U.S. It's the same with the death penalty. Clearly, the rest of the world has recognized that capital punishment is not civil. Having capital punishment in the U.S. only contributes to a back track in modern development throughout the nation.

Refutations for your arguments:
1) Justice
You state the idea of a justice pendulum, an eye for an eye. Law is not all about retaliation and retribution. The idea of "an eye for an eye" was a concept used in ancient times. There is a reason that it is outdated. A murderer is a life too. The victim's life has already been ruined illegally, does that make it necessary to ruin another life? No. Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." We should not let our law system be the culprit of making everyone "blind."

2) Saves lives
In terms of public security, maximum security prisons will have the same effect while eliminating chance of mistake, costing less and remaining a civil nation.
You bring up the idea of the death penalty as a deterrent for homicides and murders. However, I would expect murders to also be deterred by life in prison, as some view this as worse than death.
thett3

Con

Thank's Pro.

1. Innocence

My opponent misunderstands my turn, the issue at hand is not that an execution is irreversible, that cannot and will not be denied. The turn was in the fact that the need for urgency and certainty in capital cases, an innocent convicted has a substantially greater chance of walking free than an innocent convicted to life w/o parole. My opponents own evidence proves this by showing us how death sentences are resisted to the end. I repeat, there is no moral distinction between executing an innocent and locking an innocent up to die forever. My opponent hasn't given any examples of innocents freed from life without parole, the reason? It's simply an incredible rarity.

Further, my opponent drops the CSI effect evidence showing Juries now require more evidence to hand down a sentence, and doesn't respond to the turn that if we can free these people from cases years ago with modern day evidence, than the chance of convicting an innocent now is virtually nonexistent.

Her only response to my point of how we can't just assume these people guilty is a non-sequitar regarding human error. Agreed, Humans make mistakes however my opponent hasn't given any reason to believe that entire institutions commonly make mistakes. Her indictment of the Supreme court as ignorant to the facts and details of the capital cases presented to it is absolutely and totally unwarranted. Prefer the experts opinions. There has not been a single person executed in the modern era of capital punishment that has been recognized as innocent by any serious authority and thus we they are, for all intents and purposes, guilty. If my opponent wishes to debate the guilt or innocence of individual cases that's fine, but she cant just assert that they're innocent when every single legitimate authority that is qualified to judge has put them down as guilty.

Pro calls my car analogy "ridiculous", without any justification. The debate has to come down to the societal benefits of the DP. If we are to throw out something because it may cost innocent lives, we must throw away literally every human institution. Moreover, this isn't an argument against Capital Punishment, it's an argument against lax evidence requirements. I could easily offer a counterplan of only executing the obviously guilty, such as Timothy McVeigh or Peter Cantu.

2. Cost

My Opponent fails to counter my argument that justice is priceless---her own logic is an argument for capital punishment. Executing every prisoner immediately without trial would certainly be cheaper than imprisoning them for any longer, but such summary executions would be no doubt unjust. But I guess we have to look at the facts, and the facts are that a .45 Caliber handgun bullet costs around $0.32 per round. Imprisonment is too expensive for a country in such a debt.

She drops my argument about California being irrelevant because it doesn't actually execute many people, only to emphasize how the money could be used to pay off our debt. It's funny that she emphasizes that the debt is an incredible $15 trillion, when $156 million is a mere .00000104% of that.

Her only response to DPIC being biased is that it says ".org" so that makes it ok; anyone who has spent any amount of time on DPIC knows that it's biased, so this is really just a silly argument. She totally drops my attack on the studies methodolgy, so you can extend it's irrelevance.

She drops the PDP study showing the death penalty to be, over time, less exensive. You can vote Con already. Her only response to my plea bargaining point reinforces it, yes trials cost a lot...that's why it's good to have plea bargains.

Let's refute the rest of her studies:

Turn the Kansas & Tennesee & Maryland studies: DP trials costing more means more money allocated to pursuing Justice, and thus the possibility of handing down an unjust guilty sentence is reduced. Besides, I never argud that trial costs were lesser for the Death Penalty, it's the over all costs that need to be considered. Further, I've already shown the holes in the California Commision study, so there's no reason for Pro to merely repeat it without first addressing the damning flaws in its methodology.

She hasn't given you a trade off argument anyway, IE use X money for Y. So money spent in the pursuit of justice (Neg world) is preferable to money spent on unknown ends (Aff world).

3. Morality

She tries to write off her fallacies as logic by again asserting that Rogue nations like Iran & N.K. execute felons, while democratic ones often do not. But we've already established this--she's proven correlation, but not causation. The U.S. is not Europe, she needs to first prove that the Death penalty is immoral/a human rights violation before we write it off. Moreover, the reason the capital punishment is gone from the European judicial landscape is not because of some fictional love of human rights as my opponent would have you believe, but rather an undemocratic abolition by their activist and ideologically driven leaders, consider that 65% of Britons wanted the Death Penalty reinstated in 2011[1]. My opponent hasn't proven how retaining the Ultimate penalty will lead to the U.S. not being considered "a fair, free, civilized nation", and thus you can ignore it. Logically, it makes no sense what so ever to assume that other nations will negatively judge the United States based on it's execution of a few dozen vicious murderers per year in light of the common knowledge that the U.S. invades and occupies other countries just to spread it's ideology and secure it's hegemony and forces its European allies to contribute.

==My Case==

1. Justice

My Opponents only response to the pendulum theory is that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"...umm, no. An eye for an eye makes the criminal blind. She doesn't give you another way to view justice anyway, so you have to prefer mine --> The death penalty is thus just, and the resolution negated.


2. Innocent lives

Extend the Department of Justice evidence, showing how over 5% of those sentenced to die committed their murder while serving a sentence. This shows that even maximum security prisons, her counterplan, are not safe enough. Consider the Texas 7, who broke out of a maximum secuity prison[2]. This filth went on a crime spree and murdered a heroic and innocent police officer who was just doing his duty after they robbed a store. To even consider the lives of convicted murderers when their are lives of innocents at stake is, quite simply, morally despicable.

Her response to deterrence is the argument that life without parole is "worse than death". This is irionic in that it completely destroys her human rights argument (why abolish the DP when the alternative is worse?), but is also an argument made in light of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. Indeed, I offer an extension of the dropped Westley Lowe evidence, showing how the death penalties implementation has saved lives and deterred crime.

Most prisoners fear the death penalty anyway. Over 96% of inmates sentenced to die fight their sentences tooth and nail[3].

You can see that my opponents contentions are flawed and impactless while mine are virtually untouched, and thus you cast a negative ballot.

Sources:

1. http://www.angus-reid.com...;
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.debate.org...

(sources in contention 2, subpoint B)
Debate Round No. 2
Evpietsch

Pro

Evpietsch forfeited this round.
thett3

Con

Forfeit= I win.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Okay, obviously I go con here for plenty of reasons.
1. Just off the drop arguments, that's sufficient to negate.
2. Most of the pro's defense of points only further bit into the con's refutations, which didn't help pro's cause in the slightest.
3. I could vote con, at the very least, off the forfeit. But mainly, I go con off a combination of the first two.

This was a good round, minus the forfeit round, but three things disappointed me.

1. Pro - Don't let the con bully you around in rebuttals. You have a fairly decent case, minus a few pieces. Work on defending your points better.
2. Pro - While the premise of your first contention make sense, the cards you cite only beg the question of why this is a disadvantage to the DP. All they talk about is how the courts make mistakes, but this doesn't necessarily lead to DP being bad. Find better evidence to support your C1, and it will have more weight.
3. Con - While you did do a good job refuting and turning the pro's C1, you could've made things so much simpler by just saying the no link argument mentioned above. You hinted at it with your second or third response, but you didn't explicitly make the argument, so I don't give it to you. But look for those types of arguments that save you time to refute better arguments.

Again, this was a very good round and I enjoyed reading it.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
dam. thett stole this from me
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
"Capitol punishment"

....capitAl punishment.....not capitol
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Evpietschthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conducts and arguments via forfeit.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Evpietschthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments, but I honestly don't know why an RFD was needed for this round.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
Evpietschthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited last round and therefore unable to respond to cons arguments and rebuttels....
Vote Placed by Zetsubou 5 years ago
Zetsubou
Evpietschthett3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit. Arguments to Con because Pro deviated from the contentions proposed in Round 1.