The Instigator
Paradigm_Lost
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points

Having it both ways

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
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: 3/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,531 times Debate No: 3441
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (15)

 

Paradigm_Lost

Con

I heard an interesting thing the other day that, to me, seemed hypocritical. I was listening to a radio program that was speaking about how a certain nation, (I believe it was China), aborted 5 times as many females than males. Here in the States some people have expressed disdain over this. But who was complaining? Was it Pro-Life advocates? Not to my knowledge. Actually the disdain was coming from the Pro-Choice camp.

This is completely paradoxical to me for obvious reasons. How can anyone who is Pro-Choice speak out against the abortion of a fetus because one sex is being targeted? What difference does it make to them when they do not consider a fetus to be a human with basic rights in the first place? Logic would then dictate that the sex of a fetus is, at most, superfluous information for anyone that believes abortion is a viable option. So why the concern only when it seems that one sex is being targeted?

I ask my antagonist: Is it wrong to abort more females than males?
Vi_Veri

Pro

Ok, let us split my argument into sections...

First of off, before I begin, Pro-lifers are also arguing against the Chinese draconian law.

Argument A: The case against my opponent's proof.

1. My opponent has provided no proof as to if pro-choicers are really agreeing with this statement.

2. For arguments sake, let us pretend that he is right: So my next question here is, which pro-choicers is he talking about? Pro-choice ranges just as Pro-life does. There are Pro-lifers that agree a woman can have an abortion if the child birth will result in her death or if she is raped. There are also Pro-choicers that believe abortion is only right during first trimester. Then there are even those that believe a baby can be aborted during the final trimester. He must specify as it is extremely relevant to the situation.

Argument B: Pro-Choice argument.

1. The babies that were being aborted weren't the only baby girls in China that were removed. They would even inject baby girls that were born well and healthy with poisons, leave some of them out in the woods, or rid them in many inhumane ways. This is smothering the name of Pro-Choicers, and of course they would be speaking out against this.

2. The ratio of male to female is off now in China, unlike the U.S. There has been a rise in crime, violence, and rape cases. A lot more Chinese women are now also being sold into prostitution.

3. There is also little pro-choice in the Chinese policies. They mandated that you have 0 or 1 child. This is a draconian way of thinking, and doesn't imply any real freedom of choice. Either you have a boy (which is very valuable in Chinese culture) or a girl. Just one. Of course, this gives you the choice of which you want, but this is where my points 1 and 2 in Argument B interject for the Pro-Choicers. Also, this issue starts to get into eugenics. This is more of a population modification problem.

4. A woman can have an abortion before the sex of the baby is known. 4-5 months are needed to determine if a baby is male or female. That is pro-choice and also random gender. My opponent must make his point clear that this is a debate against late term abortion pro-choicers (and give a source so I can see that they really are advocating against this, because, as we can clearly see, first trimester is perfectly ok in gender selection).

Without proof that past late term abortion pro-choicers are actually arguing against anything, this debate is empty.
Debate Round No. 1
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"First of off, before I begin, Pro-lifers are also arguing against the Chinese draconian law."

Let me first thank you for debating me. Secondly, let me say that there is generally no dispute among pro-life or pro-choice camps that what is going on in China is abysmal. If ever they were united on an issue, this might be one of them. Chinese law is often construed in the West as repressive and suppressive.

However, having said that, I need to point out that isn't the focal point, nor is part of the debate whatsoever. The issue we are dealing with is a philosophical/moral question. The purpose of this thread is to pit pro-choice against feminism, two very important causes within mainstream America. I see no way to logically reconcile the two without fundamentally jeopardizing either position. If you feel otherwise, I certainly open the floor to you.

"1. My opponent has provided no proof as to if pro-choicers are really agreeing with this statement."

Immaterial. Why would I need to provide proof when it is very evidently framed as a moral question to the one who chose to debate me on this topic? I made it clear from the original post that my source came from a radio program that I stumbled upon. Requesting me to track down the radio station to corroborate their sources should not be a burden of mine since the debate is not over the veracity of the claim, but rather the philosophical/moral implications. Nevertheless, if you are simply asking if such a thing actually takes place in China, I will oblige your request.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

http://www.nrlc.org...

http://www.gendercide.org...

"which pro-choicers is he talking about?"

The ones on the radio program and the ones on a forum that I frequent who,in vain, attempted to debate the topic.

"Pro-choice ranges just as Pro-life does. There are Pro-lifers that agree a woman can have an abortion if the child birth will result in her death or if she is raped. There are also Pro-choicers that believe abortion is only right during first trimester. Then there are even those that believe a baby can be aborted during the final trimester. He must specify as it is extremely relevant to the situation."

This is irrelevant since I framed my question towards the challenger, which, in this case would be you. I'm not concerned with how Pro-Choice activists distinguish themselves from one another. I'm only concerned with the opinions of my antagonists. I want to know how my challenger can reconcile the two while remaining cogent and consistent with their beliefs.

I suspect this is a distraction to get away from the heart of the issue.

"1. The babies that were being aborted weren't the only baby girls in China that were removed. They would even inject baby girls that were born well and healthy with poisons, leave some of them out in the woods, or rid them in many inhumane ways. This is smothering the name of Pro-Choicers, and of course they would be speaking out against this."

But that isn't what we are discussing. The rest of your post simply devolves further in to off topic strawmen and non-sequiturs. The argument is transparently specific to abortion. But lets try this another way. I will ask a straight-up question, and you can answer it. Feel free to explain your rationale, but at the least, answer it. If, for whatever reason, it is more complicated than a simple yes or no answer, then by all means feel free to clarify your position. For instance, you bring up that some pro-choicers feel it is morally wrong to abort after the first, second, or third trimester. If one of these presents a moral dilemma for you, personally, I would like to know about it. What I don't want to know is what other people think. I want to know what you think. So with that, I ask:

Is it wrong to abort more females than males?
Vi_Veri

Pro

What my opponent may want and what a debate actually is, are two different things. All opinions are equally valid therefore null in terms of quality for voting. Reasoning must be asserted. My opponent claims pro choicers are at odds with China's policy, but refutes my use of pro choice to explain it. He makes a body to a claim but wants no body to argue it. In essence, my opponent seeks to devalue the nature of debate to his own ends.

My opponent said:

"This is irrelevant since I framed my question towards the challenger, which, in this case would be you. I'm not concerned with how Pro-Choice activists distinguish themselves from one another. I'm only concerned with the opinions of my antagonists. I want to know how my challenger can reconcile the two while remaining cogent and consistent with their beliefs.

I suspect this is a distraction to get away from the heart of the issue."

I didn't know we weren't debating my opinion. I had the idea that we were debating pro-choice's opinion on the issue. But if my opponent wishes to change the course of the debate, I am willing to fight that end as well.

Usually my personal opinion doesn't have a thing to do with how I debate a topic, but if this is turning into a debate about my beliefs - so be it.

Opponent when I mentioned other ways baby girls were being killed: "But that isn't what we are discussing. The rest of your post simply devolves further in to off topic strawmen and non-sequiturs. The argument is transparently specific to abortion."

This, to me, is a straw man assumption (something else my opponent accuses me of). He doesn't understand that I am trying to validate why a pro-choicer would choose to go against what is happening in China. I don't appreciate my opponent accusing me of fallacies he himself is committing. My point was valid and consistent to my argument and to his first post's question. I don't want to play smoke and mirror games in debate (I prefer cold, hard facts).

So, since my opponent has finally stated his personal rules for the debate, I will now use them to answer his question.

"Is it wrong to abort more females than males?"

My answer is yes.

And now I must validate my answer. Because my opponent said that abortion was irrelevant to the question (that he is now asking straight forward, I must remind), then I can take this in any direction I want. We are not, after all, arguing world issues. We are now arguing my opinion. From this point on, as my opponent has allowed, facts are irrelevant.

Technically, my argument merely has to be any position that supports and answers the question as a "yes" and is "cogent" and "consistent" with my beliefs. So, now, technically, my opponent must prove that my opinion is not cogent and consistent with my belief system, and that is all. That is what he has technically proposed as the rule for answering his single question.

Yes, I believe that it is wrong to abort more females than males. I believe it is wrong for the following reasons and situations (which I have mentioned some in my earlier post as well).

1. Imbalance of the population's sex types will cause damage to the nation. It has already been seen to cause heightened prostitution, violence, and crime.

2. You risk the return of dowry system where arranged marriages become a profitable enterprise.

3. You risk a generation of fewer children.

4. You risk a generation so male dominant that you essentially have a patriarchal society.

5. You undermine the farming class.

6. You risk sky ponies.

7. You usher in an era of purple grass.

Now to prove that my stance is cogent with my belief system *reminder, he only asked for cogency*.

Vi's belief system revolves around the personal happiness and independence of man.
Women will not lead happy/independent lives in a patriarchal society.
_____________________________________________________________________

It is within Vi's belief system that woman should not be subject to a patriarchal society.

Dwindling the female population risks a patriarchal society. My argument is cogent.

And obviously, my argument is consistent. I have not shyed away from saying that women should not be aborted more than men.

---Now to prove how my pro-abortion stance fairs against this opinion of mine. ---

My belief system puts human happiness above all else. I do believe abortion is feminist, but when it turns into something anti-feminist it must be shot down.

Yes, it is wrong to abort more females than males because it causes population imbalance (etc. listed above). In my belief system, as long as population is watched and kept in check, abortion, to me should be allowed.

Sad that my opponent tossed different types of pro-choice out the window.

"This is irrelevant since I framed my question towards the challenger, which, in this case would be you. I'm not concerned with how Pro-Choice activists distinguish themselves from one another. I'm only concerned with the opinions of my antagonists. I want to know how my challenger can reconcile the two while remaining cogent and consistent with their beliefs."

Essentially I have just shown him my type of pro-choice.
Debate Round No. 2
Paradigm_Lost

Con

"What my opponent may want and what a debate actually is, are two different things. All opinions are equally valid therefore null in terms of quality for voting."

All opinions may very well be valid, but debates operate under the pretexts and pretenses assigned to them. Adding strawmen that have nothing to do with the immediate topic is disingenuous and dishonest debate.

"I didn't know we weren't debating my opinion. I had the idea that we were debating pro-choice's opinion on the issue. But if my opponent wishes to change the course of the debate, I am willing to fight that end as well."

What exactly was I changing? Anyone that decides to read my first post can clearly see that my mentioning of China, pro-choice, etc, etc was merely a platform in which segue in to the overarching theme, which is that its illogical to support abortion, but be upset that a specific gender is being targeted. If a fetus is not considered a human being by the dictates of a society gone mad, how on earth can they can they reconcile that which is irreconcilable?

My opponent says, "when I mentioned other ways baby girls were being killed: "But that isn't what we are discussing. The rest of your post simply devolves further in to off topic strawmen and non-sequiturs. The argument is transparently specific to abortion."

This, to me, is a straw man assumption (something else my opponent accuses me of). He doesn't understand that I am trying to validate why a pro-choicer would choose to go against what is happening in China. I don't appreciate my opponent accusing me of fallacies he himself is committing."

More distraction from the actual debate. Attacking your opponent with borderline ad hominem instead of dealing with the actual debate is one of the very definition of a straw man.

You mention OTHER baby girls being killed. Here's the problem: If you don't consider a FETUS to be a human, or a "baby," then its gender is totally irrelevant and is, at most, extraneous information to an abortionist. What you were doing is telling sad stories about little girls who have already been born. Since you don't have a contention that born people are in fact people, you mentioning it only leads us inexorably off topic. I then try to refocus you towards abortion -- something as clear as day as the topic -- and you then try to claim that I'm doing what you are doing.

With all due respect, I am simply trying to debate the premise that I set up. Anything less is hijacking a thread and distorting it to suit an agenda because you can't really deal with the actual moral of the debate. In a way I am sympathetic to your plight, as there is no rational way to defend an indefensible position.

My opponent finally answers the actual question (which is much appreciated) by saying, "Yes, I believe that it is wrong to abort more females than males. I believe it is wrong for the following reasons and situations (which I have mentioned some in my earlier post as well)."

Here are her reasons why it is wrong:

"1. Imbalance of the population's sex types will cause damage to the nation. It has already been seen to cause heightened prostitution, violence, and crime."

Fair enough, your assessment here is duly noted.

"2. You risk the return of dowry system where arranged marriages become a profitable enterprise."

Well, here is the problem. The same people telling us that the West intrudes and tramples upon other cultures ironically have no problem intruding or trampling them when it suits their own agenda. But I digress.

"3. You risk a generation of fewer children."

I thought to a pro-choice advocate, that was a bonus. Again, the same people that generally warn of impending overpopulation are also the same people who support abortion. And in China, a country with billions upon billions of people, and a nation still with millions starving, I thought this is considered a good thing to pro-abortionist.

And remember: China has a one-child policy, right? But many women in that culture actually themselves prefer to have male children just as much as their husbands do. Are you saying that you would be willing to take away their choice? I only ask because that seems completely counter to what pro-choice is supposed to mean -- its the woman's choice no matter what.

4. You risk a generation so male dominant that you essentially have a patriarchal society.

"5. You undermine the farming class."

Why? Men can't farm?

"6. You risk sky ponies."

I have no idea what this means... Can elaborate for me, please?

"7. You usher in an era of purple grass."

I also am not familiar with this term. Can please expound for me?

All in all I thought your reasons for why its "wrong" were trite, banal, and typical. And you no further explained the moral question. Instead you used a sleight of hand to smuggle in utilitarian and pragmatic reasons masquerading as genuine concern and a genuine moral.

Now, here is why I believe that you are running on a treadmill and, while trying to create the impression that you are going somewhere, you are in fact at a standstill:

If a fetus is not a human, then there is neither a baby boy, nor a baby girl gestating in a womb. Instead there is only an amorphous blob that is beginning to form its sex organs, almost as incidentally, not to mention as insignificantly (to an pro-abortionist) as a chicken.

Therefore terminating the female in greater abundance than the male should be seen, at most, extraneous information.

Thank you for the debate Vi Veri. I'm looking forward to your response, and any future debates we might have.
Vi_Veri

Pro

My opponent states:

"I'm only concerned with the opinions of my antagonists. I want to know how my challenger can reconcile the two while remaining cogent and consistent with their beliefs."

And yet states...:

1. If a fetus is not considered a human being by the dictates of a society gone mad, how on earth can they can they reconcile that which is irreconcilable?

(Society? I thought you wanted my opinion.)

2. If you don't consider a FETUS to be a human, or a "baby," then its gender is totally irrelevant and is, at most, extraneous information to an abortionist.

(I have yet to state my beliefs on what a fetus is or isn't, strawman.)

3. With all due respect, I am simply trying to debate the premise that I set up. Anything less is hijacking a thread and distorting it to suit an agenda because you can't really deal with the actual moral of the debate. In a way I am sympathetic to your plight, as there is no rational way to defend an indefensible position.

(Strawman + moves away from wanting my opinion).

4. The same people telling us that the West intrudes and tramples upon other cultures ironically have no problem intruding or trampling them when it suits their own agenda.

(My opinion, remember?)

5. I thought to a pro-choice advocate, that was a bonus. Again, the same people that generally warn of impending overpopulation are also the same people who support abortion. And in China, a country with billions upon billions of people, and a nation still with millions starving, I thought this is considered a good thing to pro-abortionist.

(Again, my opinion, not the world's. We must keep to your askings!)

6. And remember: China has a one-child policy, right? But many women in that culture actually themselves prefer to have male children just as much as their husbands do. Are you saying that you would be willing to take away their choice? I only ask because that seems completely counter to what pro-choice is supposed to mean -- its the woman's choice no matter what.

(Again, remember, my opinion... Also, this clashes with my opinion that a balance is needed, but can still co-exist with pro-choice. I don't believe in extremes.)

7. Why? Men can't farm?

(Never said men can't farm - only that woman are a major driving force in an ethnic community where some traditions in work are only female based.)

8. All in all I thought your reasons for why its "wrong" were trite, banal, and typical. And you no further explained the moral question. Instead you used a sleight of hand to smuggle in utilitarian and pragmatic reasons masquerading as genuine concern and a genuine moral.

(First off, who said I was genuinely concerned? Secondly, it is what you asked for. How "trite, banal, and typical" it is doesn't matter as long as it's cogent and consistent with my beliefs, correct? Well...that it is. And, sir, I wouldn't be talking about slight of hands. If I'm not genuinely concerned, then I can be as utilitarian as I please. Again, my opinion. Can we all say the word of the debate, it seems, "strawman" together?)

9. If a fetus is not a human, then there is neither a baby boy, nor a baby girl gestating in a womb. Instead there is only an amorphous blob that is beginning to form its sex organs, almost as incidentally, not to mention as insignificantly (to an pro-abortionist) as a chicken.

(Huge Strawman. Again, I NEVER stated if I thought the fetus was a "human" or not. Maybe I'm a sadistic person who likes to kill human beings and I find no problem in it? Who knows. The point is, I never said. He put words in my mouth. Strawman.)

My opponent believes that I must meet his morals in order to be correct. No, I don't. I have met my morals cogently and consistently. This is what he asked for, I have fulfilled this, I need not do anymore. I can not be provoked by him saying he doesn't care about the opinions of others after my first round, and then coming back after and saying how my beliefs don't mesh with standards. Remember his question. That was his mistake.

And as for these:

"6. You risk sky ponies."

I have no idea what this means... Can elaborate for me, please?

"7. You usher in an era of purple grass."

I also am not familiar with this term. Can please expound for me?

(Read the comment box.)

Thank you for the debate, also, Paradigm Lost. Hopefully we'll do this again.

Regards,

Vi Veri
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
sorry: doesnt mean it can't* be cogent there, not can be my mistake
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
What I meant:

Debate is not about YOUR opinion. It is about AN opinion.

And a moral argument is a pathos argument.

And just because you can not see how something can exist as legitimate in a person's mind, does not mean it can be cogent there. Remember, you ONLY asked for cogency, not validity. I NEVER had to prove that my argument was valid, only cogent. And therefore even if you think it is invalid, it doesn't matter. You should have asked for validity not cogency...

And yes, was fun :)
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
"I didn't know we weren't debating my opinion."

When one debates, of course their opinion on the subject is expected. The operative words, however, are "on the subject." My contention was that you were using an emotive argument about how China is killing young girls. But neither of us are in disagreement that that is an atrocity. Since the argument was specific to abortion (something I contend is wrong, and something you contend is not wrong) is what constitutes the argument. I wanted to know how it was possible for someone to reconcile that abortion is perfectly legitimate, but aborting more females than males was not. Referring to anything beyond that criteria seemed to be a tangent. That is why I mentioned it. Hope that explains my reasoning better. Thanks for the debate, it was fun.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Fix:

"I didn't know we weren't debating my opinion."

Should be were* not weren't*

And those points were all your fault, Spiral! *tsks and shakes head laughing and smiling*
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
Awwwww and here I was hoping for sky ponies eating purple grass.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
My apologies hahaha

6. You risk sky ponies.

7. You usher in an era of purple grass.

Both were a bit of a belligerently drunken joke hahah...

Just ignore they are even there ;)
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Yes, that I did, Lwerd :)
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Ahh this debate looks like it's going to be interesting! Did you guys sign up for the Debate Tournament on Facebook yet?
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
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 LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
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 Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by revleader5 8 years ago
revleader5
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SteamPunk 8 years ago
SteamPunk
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by b3rk 8 years ago
b3rk
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kessler 8 years ago
kessler
Paradigm_LostVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30