The Instigator
TheWheel
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Economic Sanctions ought not be used to Achieve Foreign Policy Objectives.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Nails
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,072 times Debate No: 10503
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

TheWheel

Pro

I resolve: I affirm that Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. To begin with, I would like to define the necessary terms to fully understand the round, and our resolution. Economic Sanctions, as defined by Businessdictionary.com, "Economic penalties, such as stoppage of trade and financial transactions, imposed upon a country to force compliance with another country's or UN's or WTO's demands." Foreign Policy, as defined by Merriam-Webster.com, "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states." Objectives, as defined by Merriam-Webster.com, "a strategic position to be attained or a purpose to be achieved by a Military Operation." Justice, as defined by Merriam-Webster.com, "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable." The premise of my case is Justice; the criterion would be increasing the quality of life. The Quality of Life, as defined by the Quality of Life Research Unit, University of Toronto: The degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities of his/her life. Possibilities result from the opportunities and limitations each person has in his/her life and reflect the interaction of personal and environmental factors. Enjoyment has two components: the experience of satisfaction and the possession or achievement of some characteristic, as illustrated by the expression: "She enjoys good health." Three major life domains are identified: Being, Belonging, and Becoming. The conceptualization of Being, Belonging, and Becoming as the domains of quality of life were developed from the insights of various writers. The Quality of Life is hoped to be increased by preventing the downgrade of it by Economic Sanctions.

1st Contention:

The applied economic sanctions can lead to deaths in the foreign country that the country halted trade with. Joy Gordon, a Philosophy department teacher at Fairfield University, helps to further explain how deaths can occur, with a brief look at the 1991 document of deaths due to Economic Sanctions. Joy Gordon had the following to explain:

"Since 1991, international agencies have documented Iraq's explosion in child mortality rates, water-borne diseases from untreated water supplies, malnutrition in large sectors of the population, and on and on. The most reliable estimate holds that 237,000 Iraqi children under five are dead because of sanctions, with other estimates going as high as one million. The deaths from sanctions are far greater than the number of Iraqis directly killed in the Persian Gulf War -- an estimated 40,000 casualties, both military and civilian."

Thus, as given in the example above, great deaths have resulted from Economic Sanctions. The Associated Press States: "…more than 110,600 Iraqis had been killed since the start of the war to April 2009." The Iraq Family Health Survey for the World Health Organization concluded: "an Estimated 151,000 deaths due to violence." Both separate pieces of results, as given, show how even Economic Sanctions give more harm than war; thus, showing how bad they can truly be, and how they help cause deaths.

John Mueller & Karl Mueller, help to give more information on that same example. The two had the following to say:

"No one knows with any precision how many Iraqi civilians have died as a result, but various agencies of the United Nations, which overseen the sanctions, have estimated that they have contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths. By 1998 Iraqi infant mortality had reportedly risen from the Pre-Gulf War rate of 3.7 percent to 12 percent. Inadequate food and medical supplies, as well as breakdowns in sewage and sanitation systems and in the electrical power systems needed to run them, reportedly cause an increase of 40,000 deaths annually of children under the age of 5 and of 50,000 deaths annually of older Iraqis."

Together, they both, the Muellers' and Gordon explained how much damage to the population the sanctions had caused.

2nd Contention:

Economic Sanctions can reduce the amount of resources the foreign country that its used upon has. Mr. Bossuyt2 had words to describe this, using an example from the country of Burundi. He had the following to say:

"While the sanctions were in place, serious shortages of fuel, spare parts, medicines and fertilizers were experienced, with corresponding dramatic price increases and inflation. Commerce and industry were paralyzed by the lack of raw materials and spare parts, unemployment skyrocketed and incomes plummeted. Agriculture also suffered because of the shortage of seeds and fertilizers.
Development assistance, approximately $250 million annually, was cut off and foreign currency reserves were exhausted. Burundi's health infrastructure was heavily hit, and the inability to obtain even emergency medical supplies led to severe shortages of medicines and vaccines. Sanitation and water programs were scaled down or eliminated. Humanitarian aid agencies were left helpless in the face of escalating need and increasingly difficult working conditions - the World Food Program (WFP) alone was distributing emergency food assistance to an average of 218,000 people each month in 1998."

Thus, it proves how Economic Sanctions are proven to reduce the amount of resources for a foreign country it is used upon. Therefore, it connects to my first contention as a means of causing deaths as my next card provides.

Cotright and Lopez gave a brief talk about both resource reduction, and deaths in the case of the Iraq Sanction. They had the following to say:

"Never before has a country faced such prolonged economic strangulation, with the value of lost revenues from prohibited oil exports amounting to more than $130 billion, industrial output dropping by 50 percent, inflation rising by more than 5,000 percent and per capita income plummeting to levels equivalent to those found in the poorest nations. Most critically at stake is the survival of the Iraqi people, especially the most vulnerable, who suffer doubly under the oppression of a totalitarian dictatorship and the grueling consequences of one of the harshest economic blockades in history. The social impacts of the Iraq crisis reveal a shocking human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people have died prematurely from the health disaster that has swept Iraq in the wake of war and during more than eight years of comprehensive sanctions. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reported in 1996 that 4,500 children under the age of five were dying every month in Iraq from hunger and disease."

Thus, the resource reduction causes death in the population when they're put under a sanction. Thus, providing a link between the two contentions; not to mention the criterion of increasing quality of life.

I look open to my opponent's rebuttal, and case.
Nails

Con

Cross-ex:

1. If possible, could you post links to verify your sources?

2. Without economic sanctions, how else do we achieve foreign policy objectives?
- -How do these alternative methods compare to economic sanctions in their effectiveness? Their harms?
- -Is it possible to use sanctions in conjunction with these alternatives?

3. Did you give any evidence that wasn't anecdotal, ie. just one specific example of one sanction?
- -What part of your case proves that these harms of sanctions are systematic and not just isolated incidences?

4. Does a government have an obligation to protect citizens of other nations?
- -Does this obligation supercede their obligation to protect their own citizens?

5. What are these 'foreign policy objectives' that sanctions are generally used to achieve?
- -Can you give any examples, such as the foreign policy objectives for sanctioning Iraq and Burundi?

6. Why shouldn't governments be allowed to use sanctions in order to avoid full-scale conflict?
- -During conflict, why can't governments use sanctions to benefit the war effort?

7. Can we effectively sanction countries without sanctioning their food/medical supplies?
- -Wouldn't this make the civilian casualties of sanctions far lower?
Debate Round No. 1
TheWheel

Pro

Cross-ex:

1. If possible, could you post links to verify your sources?
Joy Gordon Card: http://www.crosscurrents.org...
John Mueller & Karl Mueller: N.A at the moment.
Mr. Bossuyt (II) Card: http://www.globalpolicy.org...
Cotright & Lopez: N.A at the moment.

2. Without economic sanctions, how else do we achieve foreign policy objectives?
* In order to go with the law of Sanctions (provided by Mr. Bossuyt: "Sanctions, therefore, must not result in undue hardships for the people of a country.") the ways of achieving it must not inflict possible harm on the people of the country, such as death.
- -How do these alternative methods compare to economic sanctions in their effectiveness? Their harms?
* Nobody has even used an Alternative method yet so it is impossible to know.
- -Is it possible to use sanctions in conjunction with these alternatives?
* As said above, we cannot know.

3. Did you give any evidence that wasn't anecdotal, ie. just one specific example of one sanction?
* Yes, several where harm on the country was intended due to negative threats the US or other countrys' received.
- -What part of your case proves that these harms of sanctions are systematic and not just isolated incidences?
* None.

4. Does a government have an obligation to protect citizens of other nations?
* No, but directly harming life through Economic Sanctions is a break in the code, or laws of 'said' Sanctins.
- -Does this obligation supercede their obligation to protect their own citizens?
* No it doesn't, but protection doesn't mean they have the right to kill innocent people in the means of Economic Sanctions.

5. What are these 'foreign policy objectives' that sanctions are generally used to achieve?
* Eliminate WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), Damage Economy, and the such.
- -Can you give any examples, such as the foreign policy objectives for sanctioning Iraq and Burundi?
* Iraq: Elimination of their WMDs & Extended-Range Ballistic Missiles.
* Burundi: To promote peace in the political parties.

6. Why shouldn't governments be allowed to use sanctions in order to avoid full-scale conflict?
* Economic Sanctions are proven to cause deaths, and therefore, cannot be implemented since they break their own law.
- -During conflict, why can't governments use sanctions to benefit the war effort?
* They are causing more deaths than war, as I stated.

7. Can we effectively sanction countries without sanctioning their food/medical supplies?
* It would still fracture the economy, making it hard to afford such supplies; thus, lowering the deathrate.
- -Wouldn't this make the civilian casualties of sanctions far lower?
* No, it would slowly increase until the country could even reach a point to support certain people.

Now, I stay open for my opponent's case, and rebuttal.
Nails

Con

The value is Justice. (See PRO's value)
The criterion is achieving Foreign Policy Objectives:
1. This is dictated in the resolution as the purpose of sanctions.
2. Foreign Policy Objectives must be assumed to outweigh the harms achieved in obtaining them. Suppose a government realized that the means used in achieving their desired foreign policy would incur more harm than the benefits of achieving the policy; the government would not set that as an objective. Thus achieving FPO's can always be assumed to be a superior alternative to not achieving them and therefore is always the more just alternative.

Contention 1: Economic sanctions effectively achieve Foreign Policy Objectives because they are capable of killing thousands.
(See PRO's contention 1)

Contention 2: Economic sanctions effectively achieve Foreign Policy Objectives because they greatly deplete resources.
(See PRO's contention 2)

<><><><><>
<> Rebuttal <>
<><><><><>

No objection to the value of justice.

My opponent gives a criterion of 'Quality of Life' and defines it, but that's it. There is absolutely no justification for it whatsoever. Any arguments trying to justify it in his next speech would be new in the rebuttal and, since we seem to be following LD format, not allowed.

Further, he even contradicts his own argument saying:

Does a government have an obligation to protect citizens of other nations?
"No"

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, then, to use his criterion so you defer to mine.

Contention 1 & 2: This just proves that sanctions are effective in achieving foreign policy objectives which links to my criterion as a vote for me.

<><><><><><><><><>
Debate Round No. 2
TheWheel

Pro

*********Cross-X**********
1. (Referring to 1st Contention) What if the Foreign Policy Objectives don't include killing thousands?
-- What if the FPO, if agreed above, caused more harms than death (2nd Burden), wouldn't if be going against a FPO that was never put into the Economic Sanction.

2. (Contention 2) What if inturn, greater harms are being done, with once again, death not being a FPO. Wouldn't it be unjustified?

3. (Second Burden) How are Economic Sanctions justified, despite the damage they cause?
-- How can Economic Sanctions that cause damage ever be labled as: "just?"

4. (Contention 1) If Economic Sanctions are killing thousands, aren't they doing much more harms than benefits, as linked to my own case, and your second burden?
-- How does killing lives of the innocents for the future of your country outweigh you're benefits from Economic Sanctions right now?
--- You're trying to help people in YOUR country, so wouldn't you be contradicting your case by justifying it for the foreign countries we know of?
Nails

Con

"(Referring to 1st Contention) What if the Foreign Policy Objectives don't include killing thousands?"

Going by your examples, they do kill thousands. Nuclear proliferation/Genocide were the two examples you gave.

---

"What if the FPO, if agreed above, caused more harms than death (2nd Burden), wouldn't if be going against a FPO that was never put into the Economic Sanction."

Why would we ever have the objective to cause more harm than benefit?

---

2. (Contention 2) What if inturn, greater harms are being done, with once again, death not being a FPO. Wouldn't it be unjustified?

Economic sanctions might not work. They might end in death with nothing accomplished. Such is the unpredictable nature of life. The same can be said of driving a car to and from work, risking your life on the road. If a particular sanction, like the one in Iraq, begins to seem counter-productive, then we can end the sanction. That is in no way a reason to ban sanctions before they happen.

---

"(Second Burden) How are Economic Sanctions justified, despite the damage they cause?"

Because they achieve foreign policy objectives

---

"How can Economic Sanctions that cause damage ever be labled as: 'just?'"

See above answer

---

"(Contention 1) If Economic Sanctions are killing thousands, aren't they doing much more harms than benefits, as linked to my own case, and your second burden?"

Not if they're being used to stop genocide/nuclear war. If we're sanctioning countries to get reduced price oil or something, that's a problem with our FPOs, not sanctions.

---

"How does killing lives of the innocents for the future of your country outweigh you're benefits from Economic Sanctions right now?"

It doesn't. That's why I'm advocating sanctions.

---

"You're trying to help people in YOUR country, so wouldn't you be contradicting your case by justifying it for the foreign countries we know of?"

Why would only America have the right to use sanctions? If America is causing genocide, other countries should be able to sanction us to stop us. I don't see how this is a problem.
Debate Round No. 3
TheWheel

Pro

*Opponent's Case*

:: His second burden is explained to be accomplished by me (1) proving that they cause more harm than benefits of merely achieving FPO. He doesn't bother to even give a warrant to explain how Sanctions are superior than the alternatives.

:: His first contention doesn't have no warrants whatsoever, thus he never thoroughly explains how Sanctions are justified by the thousands of deaths; even when 'borrowing' my cards in this LD debate. He also never tells how this effectively achieves those objectives.

:: His second contention, again, never gives any warrants. He refuses, nor won't, say how they are helping to achieve FPOs. He is just merely contradicting my own cards against me, and thus shouldn't be used in a standard LD NC; rather, in the rebuttal against my case. Thus, you can ignore both of his cards to the point where is he is left without warrants, and cards, only with contentions.

*My Case*

:: To extend my criterion, I'd like to add that throughout my case I explained thoroughly how I am justifying, and increasing the quality of life. His side is only hurting it through the sanctions, thus, my argument directly links to the topic at hand.

:: To extend his arguement - We have no obligation to protect a foreign country's citizens; however, we also have no right to directly hurt them in the means of death just because of need to sanctioned them. We are merely causing unneeded deaths, and an unnecessary drop in the population of the foreign country.

:: To extend my first contention. In the point of view in the world of the "see-ers," those who actually pay attention to what really goes on: these things cannot possibly be labeled as "effective." Sure, the sanctions caused deaths, which CAN be the goal of Sanctions, but what if the goal ISN'T to cause deaths. You are causing un-needed harm, and drastic consequences to your own title. Besides, my cards show more than [2x] the deaths are caused by previous Sanctions of Iraq than the Persian Gulf War.

:: To extend my second contention. Again, what if more harm is being caused. By shortening the resources, more health of the population is being weakened; more people die each year as a result. The countries cannot afford the materials needed to even buy Vaccinations for the population; thus, the right to life is being denied. This, as linked to my criterion, is lowering the quality of life to the foreign country. With such funds lost, they lose all ability to buy enough food, water, and materials needed. Thus, you cannot say such damages can justify the means of accomplishing the act of achieving FPO.

:: Finally, I shall extend my criterion. Me and my opponent share the main value of justice ("to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable"). Does it sound reasonable to kill innocent lives over achieving basic FPOs? Does it seem just to hurt the population over a country over possible threats? Does it sound right to cause more deaths than a war? It doesn't seem like that. I'm obviously winning the value debate as I've given warrants to support all my contentions, given cards to support those warrants, warrants to support my cards, and connected it all into one value of preserving and increasing the quality of life. Thereby, in no way, is my opponent achieving justice. He is wrongly killing the innocent people of a foreign country who have nothing to do with any threats the leader, ruler, or government holds against the US or whoever enacted the Sanction. Thus, you can ignore my opponent's words on their contentions, cards, and their burdens as all they did was state them - no reasons given.

* I now look open to opponent's voting issues, and closing comments; thus, I may then give my own.
Nails

Con

--"His second burden is explained to be accomplished by me (1) proving that they cause more harm than benefits of merely achieving FPO."

1. The argument is that we're not using sanctions for unimportant things. For example, we're not sanctioning Nepal because we don't like their weird looking flag: http://www.mapsofworld.com.... We're sanctioning countries that have threats of genocide and nuclear proliferation (these are PRO's own examples.) We always take the risks of sanctions into account, so there is no reason to assume that we would ever use sanctions in a situation where the harms would outweigh the benefits.

2. Like PRO said, our citizens come first. It's always superior to do more harm to them and less harm to ourselves. That's the reason we go to war to defend ourselves instead of letting countries just run us over. It might cause more harm to them, but the goal is to protect our citizens.

--"He doesn't bother to even give a warrant to explain how Sanctions are superior than the alternatives."

It's PRO's job to prove there are good alternatives to sanctions. Until he does so, I see no reason why we would assume such is true.

---

--"His second contention, again, never gives any warrants. He refuses, nor won't, say how they are helping to achieve FPOs."

Coercion

It's not a great leap in logic here: We are killing tons of their people and depleting all their resources, but promise to stop if our demands are met. There's a pretty good chance that our demands get met.

--"He is just merely contradicting my own cards against me, and thus shouldn't be used in a standard LD NC; rather, in the rebuttal against my case."

What? I'm using evidence to support my case that sanctions effectively achieve foreign policy objectives. It's not my fault PRO used these counter-intuitive cards in his own case.

"Thus, you can ignore both of his cards to the point where is he is left without warrants, and cards, only with contentions."

I'm not understanding the logic here? Because PRO posted the evidence first, it's impossible for it to support my case? Why would these warrants be invalidated for me, and only me?

---

--"To extend my criterion, I'd like to add that throughout my case I explained thoroughly how I am justifying, and increasing the quality of life. His side is only hurting it through the sanctions, thus, my argument directly links to the topic at hand."

Proving that affirming meets your standard is not the same thing as proving that your standard should be used.

Suppose my criterion was 'greediness.' I could very easily throughout my case prove that hoarding our resources via sanctions better upholds greediness. This is exactly the same logic PRO is using. Do you see the loophole? There is never a justification why my criterion of greediness (nor his criterion) is actually a good thing, just that my side of the case better upholds it.

--"To extend his arguement - We have no obligation to protect a foreign country's citizens;"

This is directly contradictory to his own (unwarranted) criterion.

--"we also have no right to directly hurt them in the means of death just because of need to sanctioned them"

We're directly hurting them? By not trading with them, we are directly causing them harm? PRO has not traded with me whatsoever, this clearly means that he has directly caused me harm by his logic. That's just asinine! THEY have no right to force us to trade with them. We are in no way directly harming anyone. Sanctions just exercise the right to property that the other country has no right to demand us to relinquish for their sake.

--"Sure, the sanctions caused deaths, which CAN be the goal of Sanctions, but what if the goal ISN'T to cause deaths."

Then we wouldn't sanction them...

--"You are causing un-needed harm, and drastic consequences to your own title"

This is another contradiction to his own C-X testimony. These sanctions are needed to stop genocide/nuclear proliferation. They are not 'un-needed harm.' They are quite necessary, which is why we have historically used them.

---

--"To extend my second contention. Again, what if more harm is being caused."

He's extending a question? Pardon me for saying that I don't quite follow.

--"By shortening the resources, more health of the population is being weakened; more people die each year as a result."

That's exactly the point of sanctions...

--"The countries cannot afford the materials needed to even buy Vaccinations for the population; thus, the right to life is being denied."

Again, isn't this exactly what we use sanctions to achieve? Isn't a good thing that they are effective?

--"as linked to my criterion, is lowering the quality of life to the foreign country."

The key word here being 'FOREIGN.' Like PRO says in CX. We don't care about them, we're saving our own hides with sanctions.

--"With such funds lost, they lose all ability to buy enough food, water, and materials needed."

Isn't this just the definition of sanctions? We are doing this to them on purpose. It's not some unintended consequence.

--"Thus, you cannot say such damages can justify the means of accomplishing the act of achieving FPO."

Why?

---

--"Finally, I shall extend my criterion."

Didn't he already do this?

--"Does it sound reasonable to kill innocent lives over achieving basic FPOs? Does it seem just to hurt the population over a country over possible threats? Does it sound right to cause more deaths than a war?"

A lovely emotional appeal, but:

1. The logical answer is YES, because the benefits outweigh the harms.
2. This is a new argument for his criterion that wasn't provided in his original speech.

--"I'm obviously winning the value debate"

We agreed on the value... How is this possible?

--"I've given cards to support those warrants, warrants to support those cards"

Isn't this circular logic?

--"Thus, you can ignore my opponent's words on their contentions, cards, and their burdens as all they did was state them - no reasons given."

This seems very hypocritical, seeing how this is also just a statement with no reasons given...

========
=Summary=
========

My opponent has absolutely no clue what the word 'extend' means. This is the most important thing in the round because the way he is using it is really annoying me, but if you don't buy that, just refer to the above arguments where he has:

1. Made no arguments against my criterion
2. Not linked to my criterion; thus,
3. Not fulfilled his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 4
TheWheel

Pro

TheWheel forfeited this round.
Nails

Con

Sanctions don't kill people; people kill people!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by xiaotianZ 6 years ago
xiaotianZ
lol, i look forward to the results to after the voting period ends.... in 84 days 0 hours 6minutes and 48 seconds... nice debate guys
Posted by tombomb25 6 years ago
tombomb25
Lame debate. I vote you both down. I like the concept put forth by nails except for a few things:

1. There's no link between FPO and justice. Set up a burdens framework if you can't think of jusifications
2. You don't show any reason why the harms in the AC mean that FPOs are ACTUALLY achieved
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
There are philosophical arguments for and against sanctions. Can we justify killing innocent civilians on AFF? Was ending racism and apartheid in South Africa sufficiently 'moral' to justify the harms the sanctions caused? etc.

My opponent's argument seems to be mostly pragmatic, so I'll try to keep the debate along those lines.
Posted by TheWheel 6 years ago
TheWheel
Well, most Sanctions are used on those countries. So - that's why.
Posted by Yoguy-107 6 years ago
Yoguy-107
reading over the first case, i was wondering if you guys had a little more philosophical backing or evidence not based on examples like the middle east?
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
"The Quality of Life is hoped to be increased by preventing the downgrade of it"

This is profound
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
I plan on using them for CX.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 6 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Five rounds seems to be quite expansive for this topic . . .
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by cjl 6 years ago
cjl
TheWheelNailsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by numa 6 years ago
numa
TheWheelNailsTied
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 idkmybffbill 6 years ago
idkmybffbill
TheWheelNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
TheWheelNailsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by mary11 6 years ago
mary11
TheWheelNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by tochter_aus_elysium 6 years ago
tochter_aus_elysium
TheWheelNailsTied
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