The Instigator
elizabethPC
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
cjl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy OBJ>

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,811 times Debate No: 10806
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

elizabethPC

Con

_______________
I feel obligatred to accept negation of todays resolution. Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
before proceeding, please observe the following observation. it is the affirmitives burden in provision of supplying evidence that economic sanctions are never ok, and the best measures, in any form of foreign policy promotions. if the negative can prove a single instance in which economic sanctions are acceptible, the negtive must win the flow.
For clarification of todays round i offer the following counter definitions:
Economic sanctions: domestice penalties applied by one country or goup on another for a variety of reasons.
Foreign policy Obj.: general objectives that guide the activities and relatinships of one state in its interactiions with other states.
For my value i choose NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. Nat sov is defined as the power of a state to so everything necessary to govern itself. one of the major jobs of the federal government is to ensure the security of the nation, defined from history central. com. a government always looks towards its own security as the paramount value, therefore we should as well. a nations is concerned for only its own citizens, not others. the general reason a nation will use economic sanctions is if another nation has threatened their safety, through nuclear threat, terrorism, aggression, traficking, tax invasions, and such measures.
in order to insure that these threats are eradicated from the trade realm of the nation, banninf trade kepps the threats form entering.
for my value-criterion, i choose that of Mark fuller's theory of government legitimacy. the gov legit theory is explained as the government having a legitimate role of protecting life, right and property of those who it governs. government legitimacy forces a government to protect national sovereignty, and when an offending country threatens national sov, the government is obligated to fix it, and there is no better way to do so than solve the problem without physical violence.
for clarification of todays round i offer the following contentions and or subpoints:
contention one: economic sanctions are the most effective options toward opposing threats and protection of ones government.

contention one: economic sanctions are the most effective options towards opposing threats and protection of ones government.
unless my opponent points out another valid alternative, that stands in the round, the following statement remains true.
SUBPOINT A__ the only other alternative towards opposing threats is warfare. warfare causes more casualties than economic sanctions. in an official report written by Joy Gordon, author, results were calculated to weigh out the end results of both economic sanctions and warfare.beforehand, Gordon wrote "Sanctions seem to lend themselves well to international governance. They seem more substantial than mere diplomatic protests, yet they are politically less problematic, and less costly, than military incursions. They are often discussed as though they were a mild sort of punishment, not an act of aggression of the kind that has actual human costs. Consequently, sanctions have for the most part avoided the scrutiny that military actions would face, in the domains of both politics and ethics." then went on to display the difference in sanction results and warfare results.::: as of may 2002, the gulf war casualties include 83, 000 veterans dead and 959705 veterans injured or ill as a consequence of wartime service to the American nation. the official may 2002 department of veteran affairs report classifies 568011 individuals as disabled. that reflects a staggering casualty result for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991. Gordon writes "since the program began (economic sanctions), only an estimated 500,000 have died as a result of the sanctions."
SUB POINT B__ economic sanctions defer future misbehavior. Jeffrey Schott, a fellow author from the Institution for International Economics, states that sanctions provoke significant economic hardship. according to Schott, in the nations were economic sanctions succeeded, the average GAP dropped 2.4 percent- the equivalent of a depression. in the first year of U.S. sanctions against Haiti, the country lost 250,000 expert-orientated jobs. UN sanctions against Serbia contributed to a 1,181 percent annual inflation and in their first year, contributed to a 20 percent increase in unemployment. even in the cases where sanctions failed, a 1 percent drop in GAP was reported. in this way, using an economic sanction to strain a criminally aspiring or threatening country's economy so that they understand the consequences of further misbehavior(bad actions), they head the warning and it is their responsibility to correct their actions. this is a warning commonly used to justify and protect a counties national security. knowing the consequences, a country should rightfully put an end to their wrong doings. as i have previously stated, this is the most efficient means of control, because it is one step shy of war.
SUBPOINT C__ opposing threats justify economic sanctions. the UN security council, empowered under Article 16 of the UN CHARTER to use economic measures to address threats of aggression,hostility, and misconduct approved partial or comprehension sanctions. the UNSCOM reported about the weapons of mass destruction that were held by Iraq: it states " Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery of bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland." and with this warrant, a threat of aggression, we use economic sanctions to end the plan of weapons of mass destruction in order to maintain national security. also, Franklin Foer wrote that in 1996, Bill Clinton administered economic sanctions on 282 drug traffickings and 49 terrorist organizations." statistics show that 67 percent of these sanctions, were in fact successful.
we see that the economic sanctions are our only alternative to warfare. warefare causes more deatrhs and casualtys than sanctions, and that economic sactions against opposing threats are lawful according to Article16 of the UN charter. i reamain on justified grounds taht economic sanctions are upheld and in order to minimize harm, eliminate threats, maintain national sov, and evade hectic warfare, we employ economic sanctions. i conclude that the negation of the resolution should be upheld.
i now awain an affirmitive argument and rebuttal.
cjl

Pro

"Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors."
-Thomas Henry Huxley
Because I agree with Mr. Huxley, I stand to affirm the resolution.
The irrationally held idea that these sanctions are for the common good is incorrect. I will show this in my speech. If were to reason that these are a mistake, less harm would be imposed on the implementing nation.
Economic sanctions should be beneficial for both parties, not only one. However they fail on this purpose. Economic sanctions harm the innocents, and furthermore, do not stop the wrong doing of the target government on their own. Other measures are used that make these sanctions seem effective.

Before I continue, I wish to offer the following definitions in order to clarify my case:
From Merriam Webster online:
Innocent: free from guilt
Ought: used to express obligation
Foreign policy: a set of goals outlining how a country will interact with other countries, from the world politics review
Economic sanctions: domestic penalties applied by one country to another for a variety of reasons, from freetrade.org
Security: a state of being free from danger, from Merriam Webster online dictionary

My value for this round is common good. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines common as belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or all members of a group of or relating to a community at large. This is because economic sanctions harm innocents, thus endangering the common good. My criterion for this round is Protection of the Innocent. This is because the women and children harmed by economic sanctions did nothing to deserve this.

We will examine this through the following
1st: Economic sanctions hurt the country that imposes them.
2nd: Punitive sanctions backfire.
3rd: Iraq demonstrates the danger of economic sanctions.

Now onto my first contention, that economic sanctions harm the country that imposes them. According to Reflections on the sanctions decade and beyond, by M. Doxey, in the 2009 International Journal, economic sanctions interrupt regular business activity. Even though these sanctions are intended to cause costs on the target, they often unlikely cost-free for the country imposing them. For example, Britain says that a possible decline in domestic employment is a reason that they oppose sanctions against Africa. In other words, the country imposing them could end up hurting themselves more than they hurt the target country.

Now to my second contention, that punitive sanctions backfire.
Subpoint A. According to Targeted sanctions: motivated policy change, by A Lowenberg and W Kaempfer, in the Fall 2009 Harvard International Review, Punitive sanctions are expected to impose a high amount of economic damage on the target country. These types of sanctions often carry the risk of foreclosing future policy changes of the target. This is because punishment tends to cease communication of both countries. With this lack of communication, compromise is unlikely In other words, these sanctions are ineffective.
Subpoint B. Economic sanctions have not been proven to work by themselves. According to Reflections on the sanctions decade and beyond, by M. Doxey, in the Fall 2009 International Journal, "success is key question to ask when looking at economic sanctions. If the target does modify or abandon the offensive policy, can that success be attributed only to economic sanctions, or were other important factors at play? And to what extant can a backlash discredit those imposing the sanctions?." In other words, these sanctions probably don't act by themselves.

Moving to our last point, Iraq demonstrates the danger of economic sanctions. According to Re-thinking humanitarian aid on the post-Gulf War era: the International Committee of the Red Cross takes the lead, by S. Denne, in the Fall 2007 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, "Initially the international community looked favorably on the sanctions imposed on Iraq because the sanctions were intended as a short-term policy strategy to pressure Iraq into withdrawing from Kuwait. Even after the U.S. invasion forced Iraq to withdraw, support remained to pressure Iraqi compliance with other U.N. resolutions at the time. Though these measures were intended to cause political pressure on Iraqi government, they caused harm on the most vulnerable in Iraqi society, the elderly, the sick, and the poor-those with little influence on policy and government."
In conclusion, economic sanctions harm the peoples common good, backfire, and impose more harm than good, and, thus I must strongly urge an affirmative ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
elizabethPC

Con

i will begin by attacking my opponents case and then move on to rebuild my own.
my opponents value was common good. He defined this in general as belonging or shared by to or more individuals. my opponent went on to discuss how economic sanctions harm innocents and therefore harm the common good. my value should remain under supremecy, and rule the round because my opponent value lacks self evidence. also, he says innocent. if we are imposing a sanction to protect ourselves, from this oposing country, then we are protecting our common good. and also, if we have warrant to use a sanction against this country, they are not innocent because they have deliberately put us in danger in one way or another, so therefore my opponents value is inconstistant and my value should be upheld.

my opponent had no value-criterion, nor did he state that his value was upheld as both, therefore he has no clear disagreement with my value-criterion. by saying this, please flow that my criterion will remain the supreme criterion throughout the round, becuase my opponent cannot give another explaination after this moment. government legitimacy shall remain the standard.

my my opponents first contention was that ECONOMIC SANTIONS HARM INNOCENTS. in this he says that common good is endangered by economic sanctions. i would like top cross apply my attack on his value, that there is no valid claim to whether or not the opposing country is innocent or taht they are not also violating our rights to protect ourselves by any means possible. therefore his first contention falls.

my opponents second cont.was taht ECONOMIC SANTIONS HURT THE COUNTRY THAT IMPOSES THEM. is this he states that it interupts business activity. i will attack by saying this: in the end, the end results justify all means. we must protect ourselves. if our economy is set off track because we cannot trade with this one country, the end result is much greater than a bit of money loss. illegal drug trafficking, missiles, nuclear weapons, torchure.. all of these things are much more dangerour than losing money. it is life our death, and if we do not stop the larger aount of harm.. it could easily cost us our lives. also, i would like to take this time to point out that my opponent did not disagree with my warrant that stated: there is no other alternative than war. by exposing this, i show you that my opponent agrees, it is either a sanction, or war! and we want the absolute minimum harm possible. therefore his second contention clearly falls.

my opponents third contention(PUNIATIVE SANCTIONS BACKFIRE) has two subpoints.
A: according to targeted sanctions: in this he says it hurts their economy. this is true. and i agree with this for this one reason. THAT IS THE GOAL. it is the ONLY nonviolent way we can protect ourselves, and as i have previously stated, my opponent agrees, therefore his subpoint A must fall.
B: not been proven to work. i attack this by saying his claim is incorrent. i have, in my case tht i have already provided, specific results calculated that show economic decreases and losses in the opposing countries and they have ceased to misbehave in the ways he had origionally targeted. therefore his second subpoint falls.

i clarify that my opponent did not disagree with my coutner definitions nor did he attack my case in any way. knowing that my opponent fully agrees, i must win the flow and i urge a NEGIATIVE ballot. thank you.
cjl

Pro

First I will admit my absent minded mistake of not attacking my opponents case. Being the affirmative, I am used to not attacking until my second speech, and the techniques that go in normal rounds. Moving on...I will defend my case, move to my opponents, then look to voting issues.
_____________________________________________
* "if we are imposing a sanction to protect ourselves, from this oposing country, then we are protecting our common good. and also, if we have warrant to use a sanction against this country, they are not innocent because they have deliberately put us in danger in one way or another, so therefore my opponents value is inconstistant and my value should be upheld."
To this, my case proves that these sanctions have various negative outcomes, so we shouldn't use them. And the government makes the offensive policies, not the people. Besides this, not all governments work for their people, they may only care about themselves.
**"my opponent had no value-criterion, nor did he state that his value was upheld as both, therefore he has no clear disagreement with my value-criterion. by saying this, please flow that my criterion will remain the supreme criterion throughout the round, becuase my opponent cannot give another explaination after this moment."
Look back at my case, and you will see otherwise. And also, protecting the innoncent is for the common good, thus upholding it.
***" my opponents first contention was that ECONOMIC SANTIONS HARM INNOCENTS. in this he says that common good is endangered by economic sanctions. i would like top cross apply my attack on his value, that there is no valid claim to whether or not the opposing country is innocent or taht they are not also violating our rights to protect ourselves by any means possible. therefore his first contention falls."
I already address above this if this is what he has to say.
****"my opponents second cont.was taht ECONOMIC SANTIONS HURT THE COUNTRY THAT IMPOSES THEM. is this he states that it interupts business activity. i will attack by saying this: in the end, the end results justify all means. we must protect ourselves. if our economy is set off track because we cannot trade with this one country, the end result is much greater than a bit of money loss. illegal drug trafficking, missiles, nuclear weapons, torchure.. all of these things are much more dangerour than losing money. it is life our death, and if we do not stop the larger aount of harm.. it could easily cost us our lives. also, i would like to take this time to point out that my opponent did nmot disagree with my warrant that stated: there is no other alternative than war. by exposing this, i show you that my opponent agrees, it is either a sanction, or war! and we want the absolute minimum harm possible. therefore his second contention clearly falls."
First, war makes a much clearer point than e.s. Again, the speech order is new to me, so forgive me. And the war message would, more likely than e.s., deter the loss of life. This is basic logic.
*****"my opponents third contention(PUNIATIVE SANCTIONS BACKFIRE) has two subpoints.
3A: according to targeted sanctions: in this he says it hurts their economy. this is true. and i agree with this for this one reason. THAT IS THE GOAL. it is the ONLY nonviolent way we can protect ourselves, and as i have previously stated, my opponent agrees, therefore his subpoint A must fall." But war would not affect their economy.
******"B: not been proven to work. i attack this by saying his claim is incorrent. i have, in my case tht i have already provided, specific results calculated that show economic decreases and losses in the opposing countries and they have ceased to misbehave in the ways he had origionally targeted. therefore his second subpoint falls." Why waste time with the sanctions when we know war is more effective, As showm by my previous logic.
To conclude defense, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE NEGATIVE. I am not used of this order. Simple, admitted, mistake.
____________________________________
Now to my opponents case.
*My burden is to prove that there is no reason to use them, as I have shown.
**"For my value i choose NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY. Nat sov is defined as the power of a state to so everything necessary to govern itself. one of the major jobs of the federal government is to ensure the security of the nation, defined from history central. com. a government always looks towards its own security as the paramount value, therefore we should as well. a nations is concerned for only its own citizens, not others. the general reason a nation will use economic sanctions is if another nation has threatened their safety, through nuclear threat, terrorism, aggression, traficking, tax invasions, and such measures.
in order to insure that these threats are eradicated from the trade realm of the nation, banninf trade kepps the threats form entering." First, nations can do wrong things with this power. If a nation is only concerned with its own security, why would they join the U.N.? As shown in my case, war has better results than e.s.
***"for my value-criterion, i choose that of Mark fuller's theory of government legitimacy." Please choose which this is, as it can't be both.
****"contention one: economic sanctions are the most effective options towards opposing threats and protection of ones government.
unless my opponent points out another valid alternative, that stands in the round, the following statement remains true.
SUBPOINT A__ the only other alternative towards opposing threats is warfare. warfare causes more casualties than economic sanctions. in an official report written by Joy Gordon, author, results were calculated to weigh out the end results of both economic sanctions and warfare.beforehand, Gordon wrote "Sanctions seem to lend themselves well to international governance. They seem more substantial than mere diplomatic protests, yet they are politically less problematic, and less costly, than military incursions. They are often discussed as though they were a mild sort of punishment, not an act of aggression of the kind that has actual human costs. Consequently, sanctions have for the most part avoided the scrutiny that military actions would face, in the domains of both politics and ethics." then went on to display the difference in sanction results and warfare results.::: as of may 2002, the gulf war casualties include 83, 000 veterans dead and 959705 veterans injured or ill as a consequence of wartime service to the American nation. the official may 2002 department of veteran affairs report classifies 568011 individuals as disabled. that reflects a staggering casualty result for combat related duties between 1990 and 1991. Gordon writes "since the program began (economic sanctions), only an estimated 500,000 have died as a result of the sanctions."" My case directly disproves this.
*****1C+B. My case disproves this. Which would you respong more quickly to: possible war or the bad economy caused by e.s. you could survive?
As I have shown, my case remains upheld, while my opponents does not.
Debate Round No. 2
elizabethPC

Con

My opponent defends his value by saying not all governments work for the people,but giving my observation which he had no disagreement to,shows that this said govt.should be the standard. therefore, his attack falls and my attack ramains.

My opponent defended his criterion by saying he did infact have one,and i apologize for not identifying it correctly,for it was not separated from the value. It is protection of the innocent. This falls because we can not protect the innocent if the oposing country,is in fact guilty of any one posibility.

my opponent defended his 1st contention by saying "i already adress this above if this is what he has to say" i am at awe. i dont understand this attack not does he clarify to exactly which above part he is cross applying to. without a valid rebut, my attack remains.

my opponent defends his second contention by saying war makes a much clearer point thatn economic sacntions. i will adress this first. economic sanctions are identified to economicaly harm a nation, as a head to more draconian acts. we use sanctions to make them stop without causing physical violence. if we used diplomacy, they could refuse like china did this past year. war takes more lives than sanctions by a long run, as i have proven. if you are upholding protection, and protecting innocent lives, then war is not the answer in anty way and by saying it is, my opponent contradicts. he says war is straight forward. he forgets that war kills. a bombing will kill more than the to or three you target. it can destroy a nation, hense the innocent. MY ATTACK still stands.

my opponent defends his first subpoint of his thrid contention by saying but war doesnt effect economy. so what? that is my question. so what. war doesnt ONLY target economy. it costs LIVES. what is money if there is no being to spend it? what is life if there is no one to live it? i rest my case and my attack stands.

he rebuilds subpoint B by saying "why waste time with sanctions when we know war is more effective."... he says, technically, why try stop it without violence, lets go ahead and bomb them and be done with it. if my opponent protects innocent and LIFE, he again contradicts himself. lets kill them, not take their money. this is draconian and crude, and on his part invalid because he doesnt repressent war nor say in his case we need war. he is getting off topic on his part, not defending his case. my attack stands.

now to defend my case. first i would liek you to take into consideration, by my rights, that he failed to attack within the first round. now, on to rebuild.
on attacking my value by saying if we are concerned for ourselves, why join the UN? i attack this by saying, i never once stated we specifically join the UN. i use the UN as an example. if he atatcks this, he must be relating to americans. i must note that the resolution does NOT apply only to america. it is international. my value stands because he misunderstands the subject of our topic.

in attacking my value-criterion, my oppontent says "please choose one, you cant have both." i miss understand. does my opponent mean the value-criterion? if so he is unaware than that is a more liberal term used for a criterion, it is not two separate things. if he means government legitimacy, it is only one criterion. is is the goverments legitimate roll in protecting whom it governs. my opponent's attack is foggy or ill-spoken. please flow this to the negative side.

on attacking my first subpoint, my opponent says "my case directly disapproves this." my opponent doesnt say how it does so or in what ways. his attack id short and very unclear. my first subpoint still stands in the idea that it wasnt attacked clearly.

attacking my second and third subpoints, my opponent says "my case disproves this." he doesnt clarify which part. then goes on to say "possible war or bad economy you could survive." i misunderstand once again. does he mean that we should use sanctions to survive or jsut have war? if so, he is on agreeable terms with me and my subpoints are clearly upheld. if he means, other wise, i would please asked to clarify further or with more detail.

by attcking my opponent and rebuilding my own case i have clearly shown you that economic sanctions are the best NONVIOLENT means, government must remain legitimate, and i strongly urge a negative ballot.

(opponent, i am a girl:D lol, and feel free to befriend me. i can share tips with you if needed, i am on my way to harvard nationals this coming february(no bragging, only looking to lend a hand)" .
cjl

Pro

Ok. just for advice, i quit. I'll request a freind ship w/ u.
Debate Round No. 3
elizabethPC

Con

my opponent has forfeited the round, which clearly concludes a negative win. thank you. observe of which we have two debate rounds left. the following is only to save time and space!!! have fun future debaters ok!
cjl

Pro

Yes i know...I just get a break from debate and want to do some speech stuff.
Debate Round No. 4
elizabethPC

Con

speech is fun. i love acting and i hope i go to regionals with my peice, my friend never said goodbye. you should watch it on youtube.several people have acted it out its amazing.
cjl

Pro

cjl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by elizabethPC 7 years ago
elizabethPC
we placed 1st thru 8th in LD debate OU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by claire.criss 7 years ago
claire.criss
Ok, I wrote my own since I ended up having like alot more time then I thought I would and ummm like if I offended anyone sorry...thankss (:
Posted by elizabethPC 7 years ago
elizabethPC
ahhhh i see. see you dont teach us enough. lol he cant explain very well either..
Posted by CoachSafe12 7 years ago
CoachSafe12
Paige, a circuit is the organization that we subscribe to, such as National Forensics League (NFL), UIL, etc.

To answer his question, we are not officially members of any circuit, beyond Oklahoma's OSSAA. That means that we are not invited to "Nationals." Harvard is not a "National" tournament, but it is a tournament that accepts schools from around the nation.
Posted by elizabethPC 7 years ago
elizabethPC
no, i think she was asking if she could actually use my skeleton for a class or something, not on here. and i dont mind at all.
Posted by elizabethPC 7 years ago
elizabethPC
we go to norman north, bishop kelly, latta, ou, norman again, harvard n then drama after nats
Posted by aoibhinn 7 years ago
aoibhinn
The site doesn't allow you to steal someone's arguments and post it into your own debate on the topic (check out my 1st debate epic fail on the cheaters part)
Posted by 146190 7 years ago
146190
A circuit is basically the order of tournaments your team goes to.
Posted by elizabethPC 7 years ago
elizabethPC
circuit ? im on my hs debate team and feel idiotic to ask wha a circuit is
Posted by 146190 7 years ago
146190
Well, I guess since he at least asked you, then it would be somewhat alright. As long as he doesn't copy word for word of course :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CoachSafe12 7 years ago
CoachSafe12
elizabethPCcjlTied
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 tbtaylor 7 years ago
tbtaylor
elizabethPCcjlTied
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 chsTG 7 years ago
chsTG
elizabethPCcjlTied
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 elizabethPC 7 years ago
elizabethPC
elizabethPCcjlTied
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