The Instigator
spencetheguy
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
longjonsilver
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Is Abortion moral?

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: 12/24/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,373 times Debate No: 973
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (15)

 

spencetheguy

Con

I am pro choice in that i believe in the woman's right not to have sex and i believe in the right of a baby to control his/her body.
longjonsilver

Pro

(For clarification: I am using the word "allow" in a moral sense not a legal sense.)

I wish you had been more complete in your description because you haven't told me how you believe we determine whether or not something is moral. You need to tell me why someone should have the right to control there body. You can't take this as an axiom in a debate with a person who might disagree with you.

I await your reasoning. But until then I will understand your ethical system to be that of natural rights because this is what is most commonly implied when one uses the word "right."

Allow me to first attack your opening statement and then move on to build an independent case for the moral legitimacy of abortion.

Now allow me to address your opening argument.

// "I am pro choice in that i believe in the woman's right not to have sex..."
Fine.

//"...i believe in the right of a baby to control his/her body."
This is where my quarrels begin.
First: Abortion does not have any relevance to a baby. Abortion deals with embryos and fetuses.
Second: You are making a false assumption here. The object being aborted does not have the capacity to control anything and has never had the capacity to control anything. To give it the right to control itself is meaningless because it simply cannot and has never been able to do this. It would be like giving rights to a skin cell that we were going to use for cloning. They both have no dispositions, no thoughts, and no consciousness AND have never before had these abilities. Now I understand that you may object here by saying that, "Just because a baby cannot control anything does not mean that it should be allowed to be killed." I will get to this claim soon.
Third: Suppose we did give this "baby" the right to control itself. As you believe in the right to control one's self, I would assume you fell that a woman should have the right to control herself. Since this is the case it seems that the woman should be allowed to kill the "baby" because it is impinging upon her right to control her body. The "baby" has essentially taken control of her body and if abortion is not permissible then the woman does not control her body.
Fourth: Assume the "baby" should control its body. No one is hurting the "baby's" control of its body if the abortion is carried out in a certain fashion. If the woman merely disconnects herself from the "baby" then no control of the baby's own life has been taken. The "baby" has merely been given full autonomy and ownership of it's body. Coincidentally it dies, but this is not the objective of the abortion.
Fifth: You have falsely assumed that a "baby" is anything worthy of the right to control. I will elucidate in my case.
Sixth: You have falsely assumed that this "baby" has a body. Embryos don't have bodies in any meaningful sense of the word.

For these reasons I feel that I have shown that you do not have any reasons to believe that abortion is immoral.

Now for my case. In my case I will try to justify abortion in multiple ways appealing to at least 2 different ethical theories. (The first justification will function on the natural rights system that you most likely support.)

Natural Rights:
An embryo can only be worthy of having the right to control its life if it is a person. I take it that you have assumed this. I find this to be false. For the following (logical) reasons. (I have excluded scientific reasons [even though I think they are in my favor] because neither of us is an embryologists and whatever we decide scientifically would be meaningless on a truth level.)
1. Using the life-at-conception belief allow me to pose the example of an embryo. I name this embryo Mary since it is presupposed to be a human. Now suppose that this embryo happens to be in a woman who will have identical twins. It divides into two identical embryos. Unfortunately if the embryo is a person named Mary then there is no way to answer the question of whether Mary dies, or continues to exist, or is replaced by Jane and Susan. These absurd questions casts impossibility on the view that a human comes into existence at conception. Summary: An embryo cannot logically be a human.
2. The only possible meaning of the claim that an embryo is a human would be that it is a member of the species Homo Sapien. The other common meaning of the word could not apply to an embryo and would automatically justify abortion. Unfortunately the former definition of the word cannot be a legitimate reason to grant rights to embryos. Species membership alone cannot be a reason for granting rights, just as race membership alone cannot be a justification of the acknowledgment of rights. As Peter Singer said, "If we are to attribute rights on morally defensible grounds, we must base them on some morally relevant characteristics. Examples would be consciousness, autonomy, and rationality, but not race or species." Summary: The definition of human that you must function on is not sufficient to grant rights.

If you still maintain that an embryo deserves rights then I haven't lost yet. To understand this, suppose you find yourself in a famous thought experiment:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. She has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from her blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the this happened--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill her. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then she will have recovered from her ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it?
You are a woman and the violinist is a "baby." The recovery symbolizes birth while the 9 month period is pregnancy.
Prolepses:
It is often argued that unlike the case of conception, you were not responsible for plugging the violinist into your system. This is true, however the objector has not proven why abortion should not be allowed in the cases of rape. Furthermore, it supposes that those who get abortions were initially planning to have a child and then later changed their mind. This is rarely the case. Also, to make this objection the objector would have to claim that the fetus' right to life hinged upon how it was conceived. To grant rights to a person based upon the actions of someone other than that person would be unjust to that person. But if this isn't enough, allow me to stipulate that you weren't kidnapped, you volunteered. Without your consent he would have died. After a few weeks you seriously regret the decision that you made and desire to disconnect from the violinist. After all, the violinist wouldn't exist right now had you not agreed to plug into him. No one else in the world met the conditions needed to support him. It's clear that you should be able to unplug. Therefore, no one should be obligated to stay connected to a parasitic like fetus.

Consequentialism:
Abortion causes no salient pain to the fetus seeing that it is not conscious. Therefore, abortion cannot be immoral. Furthermore, as you have given no justification for the existence of rights then consequentialism is the only standing ethical theory (as we both agree that pain is bad and utility is good). Until you have proven an ethical system of rights then you cannot win this round, regardless of how you counter any of my arguments outside of this paragraph.
Debate Round No. 1
spencetheguy

Con

You are correct in that my first argument was vague regarding the definition of morals and rights. I am using it in the context of should it be legal?
for your first argument is absurd. the relationship between a fetus in your words and the mother is not parasitical. does not the fetus grow to become a adult who then cares for their elderly parent? is is symbiotic.
your violinists analogy is ridiculous because getting pregnant is a probability that is known to all that are sexually active. it is a choice that they make to accept the risks.
it cannot be proved when a fetus becomes a human life. i do not know when it is, but having an abortion and hoping it was not alive is a risk that i think should not be allowed in our legal system.
i hope this answered all your questions and if i missed any let me know.
longjonsilver

Pro

Before I start, let me say that the reason my case is so extensive is for practice. I'm not trying to exploit your posts. Sorry for looking like such a hard on.

Allow me to attack your case and then rebuild my own.

First to your case.
//"I am using it in the context of should it be legal?"
I'm not exactly sure why you ended your sentence in a question mark, but I'm going to argue the best interpretation of what you have said. What I think you mean here, is that the point of this debate was to decide whether or not abortion should be legal. I have several responses:
1. You didn't say this from the beginning. This is not the title of the debate and you made no mention of legality in your opening argument, as such it cannot be what we are actually debating. The meaning of this debate is to establish what is moral, not what should be legal. I didn't create the topic or the opening argument, you did. It's too late to change what you mean now. (I did spend 8000 characters already discussing morality.)
2. I'm not sure it really matters that much. Nearly all of my arguments can be cross applied to a legal realm.
3. You've showed no reason that abortion should be illegal. Only why it might be immoral. If you think legislation should reflect morality then thats fine. In that case, then all of my arguments are effective regardless of which of the 2 we are discussing. If you don't think legislation should be morality, then you haven't yet, in either one of your posts, said one thing that will establish a case.

As for the rest of your case, there is nothing standing. I placed 6 attacks on your opening argument and you haven't responded to one of them. You did have things to say in your second post however all of these where attacks on my case and not one of them was a defense of your own. Because of this, you have no case and therefore cannot win this round no matter how well you attack my claims.

This means the round is essentially over. You can vote Pro without reading any further.

If you don't buy this, then I will proceed to rebuild my own case.

//The fetus is not parasitic because it grows to be an adult that cares for the mother.
My responses: (I ask you to read each argument and its responses in the naked sense. Please don't try to defeat my objections to one claim by referencing other points in your case. I will get to your other claims soon enough.)
1. This is only in certain circumstances and is not intrinsic of a fetus. However, a fetus is inherently parasitic.
2. Does it matter what the fetus will become? I would say no. What matters is what the fetus is right now. If I look out into my yard and see you ripping it to shreds and you shout back at me, "It's ok, I'll give your yard a make over in like 30 years." That cannot be a legitimate reason to continue tearing my yard apart against my will.

//Violinist analogy is ridiculous because you know that you might get pregnant when you have sex.
My Responses:
1. Merely because you "knew" that pregnancy was possible does not mean that you must suffer the consequences when it happens. Every time someone skates on a pond, they know that there is a chance of falling through. However, this is not a sufficient reason to leave them drowning when they do fall through.
2-4. This is exactly the response that I had expected and because of this I provided 3 prolepses for this, one of which was a stipulation to the thought experiment that could solve for the problem (regardless of whether your claims were legitimate or not). Not one of these 3 prolepses were responded to and as such they still remain standing. (I will not reiterate the 3 responses for brevity's sake and because they can be found above.)

//The existence of a human cannot be proven, therefore we can't merely hope that we are not murdering.
My Responses:
1.You are merely asserting (without proof) what we can and cannot prove. I gave you at least one reason why we can know that it is not a human and you did not respond to this. (The reason was the identical twin thought experiment.)
2. Even if we cannot prove whether or not it is a human, I have already shown that this is actually irrelevant. (Refer to the Singer card that deals with who deserves rights.) You did not respond to this.

//"I hope this answered all your questions and if i missed any let me know."
I do think you missed much of my reasoning. I have already highlighted some of the things that you have missed. For brevity I will leave those cards out of this section and will only list those arguments that you did not respond to and that I have not already extended.
1. You did not tell me why someone should have the right to control there body. I know in daily life we take this to be axiomatic but I have asked you to provide the reasoning and you have not done so.
2. Consequentialist ethics have not been defeated. I brought this up at the end of my post and you did not respond to it. I told you that this is absolutely pivotal because you cannot win the round if you do not defeat this claim. This is an a priori reason to vote Pro that has not been answered. Rights are merely an arbitrary human manifestation and have not been proven in this round so you cannot even rely on them in the first place. Therefore, consequentialism as a justified ethical theory gives you a reason to vote Pro regardless of anything that he has to say in the rest of the cases.

Summary of Ways to Vote Pro:
1. Con's case has been defeated and has in no way been extended.
2. Parasite card.
3. Identical twins card.
4. Violinist card.
5. Singer/Distribution-of-Rights card.
6. Consequentialist card.

These are 6 independently sound reasons to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
spencetheguy

Con

to start off sorry again about the vagueness of the description.

reasons why pro's reasons are invalid.

1. I left my initial argument concise, broad and purposefully flexible on purpose so of coarse i cant expand it. that is not a reason to vote against me.

2.the biological definition of a symbiotic relationship is two organisms that work together for a mutual benefit. there is not a time constraint, and the yard analogy is extreme. the yard is not trashed, only occupied and slightly damaged so that it will fix itself. does not a body return to normal soon after a pregnancy? so then in 30 years whoever damaged the yard comes in and takes care of it when the owner cannot. making this a symbiotic relationship not a parasitical.

3. the twin argument is also faulty. it actually supports my argument. you argue that an embryo can become two fetuses then babies and children and adults. times 2 points for me. by having an abortion one could potentially kill end two not one pregnancy. your argument is that an embryo is destroyed when it splits. that embryo mary becomes susan and jane. well i say that the split becomes mary and jane. this argument either way cannot be proves scientifically and therefore completely depends on the perspective.

4.your ice skater argument is also faulty. a pregnancy does not automatically kill you. and we can all agree that the ice skater is very stupid to go skating in thin ice. when said person knows the ice is thin. just as when a woman has sex she knows she can get pregnant. the woman is not dying, only having several months of discomfort and one day of pain.

5. as to the distribution of rights, i am arguing that a unborn child has the right to choose just as you argue that a pregnant mother has the right to choose. like you said it is a automatic human desire to do the right thing and we are debating what that right thing is. so if you want to debate the distribution rights lets do it another time.

6. your ethics argument is intriguing. I believe that you could of understood my system from my first argument that an unborn child has the right to life. and according to your argument it is ethical to murder someone in their sleep for they feel no pain? or is the victim not alive because he is unconscious.

may i point out that your argument 1 is not a reason at all.
and 5&6 are basically arguing the something. that i did not set up proper debating ethical parameters. that does not mean my arguments are wrong. 1/2 of your arguments do not combat mine and i have more than answered the rest. if you thought my debating procedures were so flawed why did you debate me?

to the voters my initial argument that abortion is killing, pregnancy is easily avoidable and read my arguments to see why an unborn child/fetus has the right to life.
longjonsilver

Pro

To start off, let me apologize if I have sounded condescending. I didn't think I had, but based on your second-to-last sentence I must have come off that way. Furthermore, just for clarification, I use capital letters in my posts for emphasis, not to yell or anything. They are meant to function as italics.

Allow me to rebuild my voting issues and then supply some final closing remarks. Each one of these is an independent reason to vote Pro. If the observer finds ONE that is true then I should win this round, as I will have provided a window for the morality of abortion.

1. //You stated that you left your opening argument concise so that it could be versatile and expanded upon later.
My Response:
I think you only partly understand what I am saying here. I am not trying to claim that you lost because you had a brief opening argument. Yes this is true, you didn't start with much but that is not why I think you have lost. I placed six responses on your opening argument and you did not respond to any of them. (These six reasons can be found in my first post towards the beginning.) Therefore, your opening offense cannot stand. Furthermore, you never once tried to establish any more offense. What you have done this entire debate is fight my claims that say that I am right. You only responded to my offense, but built a case of your own. Never once have you advanced a reason as to why abortion is immoral, you have only attacked my case. Because of this it is impossible for you to win because you do not have anything to win with. Don't get me wrong. You have said things this round, but they are all attacks against my case. You have never once advanced any logic that says that abortion is immoral. Therefore, even if my logic as to why abortion is moral was terrible it would still be infinitely better than you zero claims as to why abortion is immoral.

2. //[The relationship is symbiotic. The mother is not damaged that bad and what damage she does experience is only temporary.]
My Responses:
First, you cannot claim that the relationship is symbiotic. It doesn't matter what MIGHT happen in thirty years. It is ridiculous to even consider this. It is only POSSIBLE that this thirty year old will take care of the mother. This is not intrinsic to a fetus/embryo. What is true, is that a fetus/embryo is always parasitic-like and only sometimes repays it's debts (wayyyyyy later on).
Second, what actually matters is here and now. There is a woman whose body is being sacrificed against her will for something she doesn't want. As you believe in self ownership, you should not be happy with this. Furthermore, the yard analogy stands after only a few small alterations. Allow me to present the updated version. Your neighbor perpetually tears up your yard for ruffly nine months at an increasingly damaging rate. She tells you that this is acceptable (even though you don't approve), because she will fix your yard afterwards. However, the repair will never put your yard back to the way it was supposed to be. Then some day, thirty years from now, she may repay you for the nine months. Is this acceptable? I would say no. You, as the yard owner, have the right to get the person to get out of your yard. Allow me to elaborate on the permanent cons of pregnancy (reasons why the yard can never go back to normal). You may very well loose your job because the boss secretly doesn't want a pregnant person doing the job and your body figure will have certainly been trashed. (Remember that there are many non-permanent, yet very discomforting results of pregnancy such as having to restructure what you consume.)

3. [You actually end two pregnancies instead of one. Also, the embryos are actually the ever-present Mary plus a new Jane.]
My Responses:
First, the fact that you might possibly be ending two pregnancies is irrelevant. The round is about whether or not ending a pregnancy is immoral. If I prove that it is morally acceptable then it wouldn't matter how many pregnancies were ended. Essentially your point could only be analyzed after the round is over. Otherwise we wouldn't know whether it showed anything bad, good, or neutral. As such, your first point here is irrelevant to our current discussion.
Second, your next point here is nothing but an assertion and impossible. Which embryo would be Mary? If anything the two embryos are BOTH Mary, seeing that they both have the EXACT same DNA. But this is off subject. The point is that people don't split in half and create two persons. That is what starfish do. You can't assign rights to something that could spontaneously split in half because this thing cannot even be formally understood as a human. For if you were to name it and understand it as an individual then it might very will instantaneously dissipate in a puff of confusion.

4. //[The analogy is flawed because the woman does not die like the skater does.]
My Responses:
First, second, and third, you have mistakenly labeled my entire fourth voter as nothing other than the skater analogy. This is not true. If you will remember, the fourth voter was the violinist's story. You didn't even mention the violinist. You spent all of your time addressing the skater analogy when this was only one of FOUR supporting arguments for my fourth voter. This means that even if my skater analogy fails, there are still THREE untouched independent reasons proving that this voter is legitimate. (If you are interested in these important untouched reasons then they can be found in my first post, towards the end, under "Prolepses:.")
Fourth, this nit-picky response is not sufficient to address the analogy. You know that the death of the skater is not an integral part of the analogy. Your response is an exploitation of the analogy. The point is that just because someone is at fault for their unfortunate situation does not mean that they MUST suffer the consequences. This was the point of the analogy and you have done nothing other than point to an irrelevant difference between the two. (One could have just as easily said, "The woman doesn't wear ice skates during pregnancy and this proves the analogy false.") If you don't like it, then I change the analogy to say that the skater will get hypothermia if you do not help her. At this point the analogy stands just as strong as it did before and gives another reason to support the fourth voter.

5.//[Pro is off topic. Distribution of rights is irrelevant.]
My Responses:
I'm going to have to quote you here, because I can't believe what you said. You open this response with, "...I am arguing that a unborn child has the right to choose..." If we read further, we will find your response to my fifth voter. You say, "...so if you want to debate the distribution of rights, lets do it another time." Please tell me you see what I'm talking about here. You explicitly told me that you were concerned with the unborn child's RIGHT to choose. Then, just TWO sentences later, you say that we should discuss distribution of rights another time. This is a blatant contradiction. Furthermore, you opened this debate with, "...and i believe in the right of a baby to control his/her body." You can't tell me that we are not discussing the distribution of rights. That is EXACTLY what we are discussing. As such, my fifth voter has gone essentially untouched because you only tried to exclude it but not refute it. This is ABSOLUTELY PIVOTAL because this was my most powerful voter and you have entirely ignored its contents. (Refer to my last post to see the voter's reasoning.)

6. I have no characters to write a response, so I'll drop voter six.

OBSERVERS: I have five entirely independent and sound reasons for you to vote Pro. If you don't feel like reading them all and are merely looking for the most powerful, then refer to one, four, and five.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by oprahskid 6 years ago
oprahskid
Longjonsilver totally crapped all over spencetheguy. Spence makes no case whatsoever except to specifically refute his opponent's attacks.

To me, it seemed that he did a poor job defending and when he did address longjon's refutations, he did so very selectively while ignoring the point they made.
Posted by longjonsilver 6 years ago
longjonsilver
Advidoct, you clearly didn't read the round. I don't blame you for not reading everything here. There is just way to much stuff for a casual observer to really care about reading. However, that DOES NOT mean that you should run in here and shout about how I didn't respond to arguments. I addressed argument about the woman knowing the risk EVERY single post. Furthermore, yes a skin cell does have everything that is needed to become a series of developed organs through cloning. DNA is all that is needed, and this is locked up in every cell of the body.

As for the parasite. Yes, I did compare it to a parasite, but like it or not my opponent compared the embryo to a symbiotic relationship because the embryo will come back help the woman in 30 years. Please.

Next time you go to trash someone, I would recommend reading the debate first.

poojabaja, I answered all your issues in the debate also.
Posted by poojabajaj_85 6 years ago
poojabajaj_85
its definately immoral ....kiling of some life is both illegal ang immoral....the foetus is not only "a skin cell which can b used for cloning" it has a life too...one more thing..."carrying pregnanacy is not like drowning into pond".....its gives u a new identity--MOTHER...and if a woman does n wanna pregnanacy...both the partners should be take the precautions
Posted by Advidoct 6 years ago
Advidoct
Dude...
How can pro actually be winning this debate.

Once you get passed his thick diction, all you see are the DUMBEST points I have ever heard when it comes to arguing for the woman's choice.

As clear as I can tell, longjonsilver compared an unborn child to a parasite, diminshed the importance of a fertilized egg to that of a skin cell (which you cant do considering a skin cell doesnt develop into a series of organ systems)

Lastly, he totally failed to satisfy any argument that the woman knew the risks. That was a big point by "con" and "pro" practically ignored it.

"Con" May have shorter arguments, but he makes very strong point. "Pro" just rambles about very weak points.
Posted by TeaandScarves 6 years ago
TeaandScarves
It seems to me as though way too much of this debate was each side simply telling the other how their actual debating was flawed. This wasted a lot of energy on both sides. While making the point of flawed debating can be relevant, for me it just got tiresome.
Posted by gonovice 6 years ago
gonovice
Maybe abortion isn't actually moral but it is still the womens choice.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by oprahskid 6 years ago
oprahskid
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 spencetheguy 6 years ago
spencetheguy
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 aaltobartok 6 years ago
aaltobartok
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 oboeman 6 years ago
oboeman
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 gonovice 6 years ago
gonovice
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 VbPeppermint 6 years ago
VbPeppermint
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 mv 6 years ago
mv
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 goldspurs 6 years ago
goldspurs
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 NSG 6 years ago
NSG
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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 Rousseau 6 years ago
Rousseau
spencetheguylongjonsilverTied
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