It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence
Full resolution: It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence.
This will be an LD-style debate. All types of LD cases are acceptable.
Rounds will break down like this:
Round One: Con posts debate. Pro posts opening argument.
Round Two: Con posts case and refutes pro. Pro defends and refutes.
Round Three: Con refutes and defends. Pro refutes and defends. No new arguments in this final round.
Pro has right to define all terms deemed necessary as he/she sees fit. Definitions may be challenged and other words that were not defined may be defined if the con deems necessary.
1. Violation of the round structure results in loss of conduct point, but not loss of debate.
2. Please do not troll. If you accept this debate, be prepared to debate seriously.
3. In the event of a forfeited round or a concession, all seven points go to the victor.
I await an opponent.
"If the numbers we see in domestic violence were applied to terrorism or gang violence, the entire country would be up in arms, and it would be the lead story on the news every night." -Rep. Mark Green, WI.
Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence
As the affirmative I will be arguing in favor of the resolution.
Value Criterion- Protecting Human Rights
One might reasonably ask, how can it be said that the use of lethal force is in any way promoting human right, or just? Is a person not being killed in the situation if it is used. Domestic Violence however is in its own way, a form of lethal force, as all too often it leads to the death of the victim.
Websdale writes, "EVERY YEAR in the United States, 1,000 TO 1,600 women DIE at the hands of their male partners, often AFTER A LONG ESCALATING PATTERN OF BATTERING... A significant number of the 6,000 or so WOMEN who COMMIT SUICIDE in the United States each year LIKELY do so BECAUSE OF BEING ABUSED by an intimate male partner."
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence also writes, "ALMOST ONE-THIRD OF FEMALE HOMICIDE VICTIMS THAT ARE REPORTED IN POLICE RECORDS ARE KILLED BY AN INTIMATE PARTNER. IN 70-80% OF ALL INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDES, NO MATTER WHICH PARTNER WAS KILLED, THE MAN PHYSICALLY ABUSED THE WOMAN BEFORE THE MURDER." As well as, "30% to 60% of perpetrators of intimate partner violence also abuse children in the household"
As has just been shown, repeated domestic violence can result in death for the victim of the violence. As well as the possibility of child abuse. Due to this, my first contention will be,
Contention One- Self-Defense(Right to Life)
Hobbes writes, "As FIRST a man CANNOT LAY DOWN THE RIGHT OF RESISTING THEM, THAT ASSAULT HIM BY FORCE, TO TAKE AWY HIS LIFE; because HE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO AIM THEREBY, AT ANY GOOD TO HIMSELF. The same may be said of Wounds, and Chains, and Imprisonment; both because there is no benefit consequent to such patience; as there is to the patience of suffering another to be wounded, or imprisoned: as ALSO BECAUSE A MAN CANNOT TELL WHEN HE SEETH MEN PRECEED AGAINST HIM IN VIOLENCE, WHETHER THEY INTEND HIS DEATH OR NOT. And lastly THE MOTIVE, AND END FOR WHICH THIS RENOUNCING, AND TRANSFERRING OR RIGHT IS INTRODUCED, IS NOTHING ELSE BUT THE SECURITY OF A MANS PERSON, IN HIS LIFE, AND IN THE MEANS OF SO PRESERVING LIFE, AS TO NOT BE WEARY OF IT."
According to Hobbes, a person living in a society will give up certain rights, so that they may live peaceful lives, free from worry of harm caused by others. Yet there are rights that are unalienable and could never be conceded or given away. An example would be the right to live. Hobbes saw self-defense as a right that was essentially an extension of the right to live. His view was that by acting in violence, or with lethal force towards someone, the perpetrator of the act was forfeiting their right, and it was permissible for the victim to act in self-defense to save their own life, indeed even if that meant the death of the perpetrator of the violent act.
Sub-Point A) The Doctrine of Double Effect
Sir Thomas Aquinas is oft-credited with introducing this moral principle he argues, "NOTHING HINDERS ONE ACT FROM HAVING TWO EFFECTS, ONLY OF WHICH IS INTENDED, WHILE THE OTHER IS BESIDE THE INTENTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACT OF SELF-DEFENSE MAY HAVE TWO EFFECTS: ONE, THE SAVING OF ONE'S LIFE; THE OTHER, THE SLAYING OF THE AGGRESSOR."
Aquinas also writes, "Therefore, THIS ACT, SINCE ONE'S INTENTION IS TO SAVE ONE'S OWN LIFE, IS NOT UNLAWFUL, SEEING THAT IT IS NATURAL TO EVERYTHING TO KEEP ITSELF IN BEING AS FAR AS POSSIBLE."
Now cross-apply my statistics of deaths caused by domestic violence and we see that a victim of domestic violence acting in self-defense is indeed morally permissible in certain situations. Continuing on, one might reasonably ask a few questions:
1) Why cant this person just leave the one abusing them?
2) Calling the police is always a better option is it not?
3) Court System can issue restraining orders can they not
These questions lead right into my next contention
Sub-Point B) Society does not adequately protect peoples rights at certain times.
A) Approximately ONE-HALF OF the (RESTRAINING ORDERS OBTAINED by women AGAINST INTIMATE PARTNERS WHO PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED THEM WERE VIOLATED. More than TWO-THIRDS OF the RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST INTIMATE PARTNERS WHO RAPED OR STALKED the victim WERE VIOLATED.
B) 15 PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO CALL THE POLICE ARE RE-ASSAULTED.
So even when police intervention is involved there are still cases where the violence is repeated. What we must also keep in mind is that 85 PERCENT OF ALL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS AGAINST WOMEN. So in most cases of domestic violence the weaker of the two in the couple is the one being abused. When acting in self-defense one cannot expect a woman to successfully defend herself without some sort of safety measure or assistance in the way of a non-fatal or potentially fatal device can we? Its common knowledge that the case is the way I just detailed in terms of defense.
In summary, I believe it is morally permissible for victims of repeated domestic violence to use lethal force in certain situations. This is because:
A) Doctrine of Double Effect
B) Society does not adequately protect peoples rights at certain times.
Though that is an extremely short framework I believe it does a sufficient enough job of showing why and in what situations the use of lethal force by victims of domestic violence is morally permissible. Once more I thank Zaradi for beginning this debate and look forward to reading his case.
---------------- Sources ----------------
1) Websdale Neil, "Investigating Domestic Violence Deaths" NIJ Journal no. 250, Nov. 2003.
2) National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, "Domestic Violence Facts" Nov. 2007
3) Hobbes Thomas, "Leviathan."
4) "Doctrine of Double Effect" [http://plato.stanford.edu...] Sep. 2011
5) Felson Richard, "Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault" Jun. 2005
I post my negative case in the following google document.
Now, let's look to the affirmative case. There's a few things wrong with his framework:
1. He advocates for a value of morality, but has no moral theory to justify his actions. It's like saying that we need to ensure a trial by jury system with no court system. It just fails entirely.
2. Even if, my negative case clearly severs the link between affirming the resolution and morality. Since my opponent must prove that using lethal force is MORALLY permissible, this is a game-over blow.
I won't contest his Websdale evidence, because all that talks about is how many women die because of domestic violence. This plays no part in justifying lethal force, it's just merely citing a statistic. However, his first contention I do have an issue with.
First, let's look to his Hobbes card, where he says that people have certain rights that are given up to live in society, but there are rights that are never given up, such as the right to life. But then he says that the abuser forfeits their right to life by commiting the act of abuse, but this is highly problematic for a few reasons.
First: This is simply not true. All humans are holders of rights, as per the basic definition of rights. Donnelly explains
Human rights are, literally, the rights that one has simply because one is a human being.Human rights are equal rights: one either is or is not a human being, and therefore has the same human rights as everyone else . They are also inalienable rights: one cannot stop being human, no matter how badly one behaves nor how barbarously one is treated. And they are universal rights, in the sense that today we consider all “human beings,” holders of human rights.
Thus, the abuser will always retain their rights, no matter what they have done. This includes their right to life, which makes it morally impermissible to kill the abuser.
Second: TURN: If people forfeit their right to life when attempting to kill others, then it would be permissible for the abuser to then kill the victim. Thus, we would then be able to justify the abuser turning around and killing the victim. This is going to outweigh because by affirming, we only put the victims in further jeopardy.
Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2003
Next, let's talk about the quoting of Thomas Aquinas to justify self-defense. There are a lot of issues with self-defense.
1. repeated” implies that the action has occurred before, therefore:
a) The abuse is not deadly, since they survived the first round. Therefore the actor is not in imminent danger.
b) The abuse is periodical, so they have chances to escape but have chosen not to in favor of revenge.
2. “deliberate” implies that the actor has contemplated their response before the actual confrontation, therefore it cannot have been based on the threat to the victim at the time since they would only have antecedently been aware of the magnitude of the risk to their life.
3. Even if self-defense justifies lethal force, it’s impossible to know whether self-defense was truly necessary or not in the situation. Since every situation is different, applying an overarching moral rule to it just fails entirely.
4. TURN: if self-defense is true, then the abuser is justified in killing the victim when the victim tries to kill the abuser. In other words, the abuser can then claim he was acting in self-defense and kill the abused person and get away with it. This will always outweigh because self-defense thus fails to protect the life of those who are abused.
5. If self-defense were true, then any murderer could claim he acted in self-defense and get away with it, relying on complex psychological analysis to prove whether or not they actually felt threatened – analysis that is in no way falsifiable.
6. Self-defense negates because deadly force fails to fall into the category of self-defense. Cathryn Rosen explains
The amount of force employed by the defender must be proportionate to the threatened aggressive force. If deadly force is used to defend against nondeadly force, the harm inflicted by the actor (death or serious bodily harm) will be greater than the harm avoided (less than serious bodily harm). Even if deadly force is proportionate, its use must be necessary. Otherwise, unlawful conduct will only bejustified when it involves the lesser harm of two harmful choices. If countering with nondeadly force or with no force at all avoids the threatened harm, defensive use of deadly force is no longer the lesser evil of only two choices. Alternatives involving less societal harm are available. in many cases it may have been possible to avoid unlawful conduct altogether.
Since using deadly force deliberately to respond to domestic violence fails to meet these criteria, either a) you don’t buy self-defense and drop the argument or b) negate off of self-defense and drop the debator.
These specifically take out his use of the Doctrine of Double Effect to justify using self-defense.
 Rosen, Cathryn Jo. The Excuse of Self-Defense: Correcting a Historical Accident on Behalf of Battered Women Who Kill. The American University Law Review. 1986.
My opponent's last subpoint basically broil down to the fact that our judicial system sucks at keeping abusers away. However, this isn't going to work for my opponent for quite a few reasons.
First: This just isn’t true because if the abuse has been repeated, the abuser will face a much stronger sentencing, meaning that his sentencing will be more strongly enforced.
Second: This doesn’t matter because even if protection orders fail, there are other avenues of solution to pursue. If the victim is so far out of the cycle to actually obtain a court order, then they can push for an arrest or stronger punishment. In essence, there is no warrant as to why this justifies deadly force.
Third: TURN: if courts view the abuse as loose as the AC claims, then they are less likely to justify them using deadly force as a response to it. This means that either the resolution is conceptually negated, or that the victim is punished, which outweighs because it would cause more harm to the victim.
Fourth: This just isn’t true. Courts are likely to take domestic violence cases more seriously because the evidence is all provided for them: the victim is right there for testifying, the evidence is all in the house, etc. Therefore, it is far easier to prosecute an abuser than a regular criminal.
Fifth: Doesn’t matter because it doesn’t justify the use of deadly force. If it were, it would merely just equate justice with necessity, which isn’t true. Robbing a store for money may be necessary, but that doesn’t make it just.
Sixth: TURN: if the laws clearly do suck, then it gives the government incentive to change the law to better protect the women. Killing the abuser doesn’t fix the problem, it only gets the victim in more trouble. We need to fix the system then, not further harm the victim. This outweighs because while killing the abuser only masks the problem, fixing the issues in the system will provide for a better solution in the long run.
So the round breaks down like this:
1. My opponent isn't showing how he actually achieves morality, making it a) impossible for him to achieve his value and b) actually affirm the resolution, since he must prove moral permissibility.
2. My case sufficiently severs the link between affirming and morality, since morality is subjective.
3. I'm showing you numerous reasons why self-defense fails or negates.
4. I'm showing you reasons why the legal system is sufficient or is a better route to go through than killing the abuser.
Thus, the only vote is a vote for the con debater.
I will start by providing the moral theory from which I was working from in presenting my case. That theory would be agent-centered deontology. Agent centered deontology is a moral theory very much inter-linked with the doctrine of double effect.
"At the heart of agent-centered theories is the idea of agency. THE IDEA IS that MORALITY IS intensely PERSONAL, in the sense that WE ARE EACH ENJOINED TO KEEP OUR OWN MORAL HOUSE IN ORDER. OUR categorical OBLIGATIONS ARE NOT to focus on HOW OUR ACTIONS CAUSE OR ENABLE OTHER AGENTS TO DO EVIL; THE FOCUS of our categorical obligations IS TO KEEP OUR OWN AGENCY FREE OF MORAL TAINT. It is OUR INTENDED ENDS AND INTENDED MEANS that MOST CRUCIALLY DEFINE OUR AGENCY.
From this basis negative outcomes can occur, if the intent was not to cause them. The actions by which we produce the intended result factor in as well. To compare this to a victim of domestic abuse, I refer back to my conceded statistics on domestic abuse. We see that death is an occurrence that is possible, and not just possible but probable. Now for clarity on the Doctrine of Double Effect I will explain the 4 main points to it:
1) That the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2) That the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3) That the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4) That there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect"
Now with this we see that as long as the consequence of causing the abusers death is unintended, and the person is acting purely in defense, then it is morally permissible. Indeed, even if the act was deliberately done, one could justify it by saying:
1) free-ing oneself from torture that causes serious harm(lethal) (neutral)
2) One intends that they will be free from the torture and one who is torturing them. Not intending the torturer to die.
3) One does not have to kill the torturer to free oneself necessarily. However during the escape the torturer attempts to stop oneself. Already the subject of torture, with the torturer now preceding at them violently, one is justified in believing that the intent of the other is to kill oneself.
4) The torturer has been and will likely be using lethal force. Thus ones life is in danger, and with no escape route, one has no choice but to defend themselves with lethal force.
Now keep this example in mind for later when I present my last card.
"The abuse is not deadly, since they survived the first round. Therefore the actor is not in imminent danger."
Now take into account this reasoning, when compared to the evidence. To say that because the first occurrence has been survived means that all subsequent abuse will not be lethal in force. Indeed even if it were lethal in force, there is a chance that the person could survive. Lethal force does not always mean that the person who is the recipient of such force will die. Note the Hobbes card in which he states, "BECAUSE A MAN CANNOT TELL WHEN HE SEETH MEN PRECEED AGAINST HIM IN VIOLENCE, WHETHER THEY INTEND HIS DEATH OR NOT."
Now this is crucial because when an aggressor in a domestic relationship acts violently, how is the recipient of that aggression to know what it is they intend on doing? Referencing my statistics we see that death does result from these cases so the person is wholly justified in believing the other intends to seriously harm them, if not kill them.
"The abuse is periodical, so they have chances to escape but have chosen not to in favor of revenge."
Now note my statistics about restraining orders and the effectiveness of those. With this we see that even if the person leaves, the violence can still occur. So just to say they have a chance to escape is not wholly true because in some cases escaping just doesn't work.
""deliberate" implies that the actor has contemplated their response before the actual confrontation, therefore it cannot have been based on the threat to the victim at the time since they would only have antecedently been aware of the magnitude of the risk to their life."
I'm not sure if I mentioned anything about deliberate actions? But since we are on the subject. If I may reference back the Hobbes card, "THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF WOUNDS, and CHAINS, AND IMPRISONMENT; both BECAUSE THERE IS NO BENEFIT CONSEQUENT TO SUCH PATIENCE; AS THERE IS
NO BENEFIT CONSEQUENT TO SUCH PATIENCE; AS THERE IS TO THE PATIENCE OF SUFFERING OF ANOTHER TO BE WOUNDED, OR IMPRISONED.
A person is still more than justified as they are likely "trapped" in the situation with barely any assistance at all. Again, cross-apply my statistics of intimate partner violence and we see that even thought the first time was not fatal, it is still probable that it will be so in the future, or even if they manage to leave, the
person might still abuse them, whether it be restraining orders or a prison sentence, it can occur again. Victim's of domestic violence are much akin to prisoners, as they are very much forced in staying sometime. Now I will present my next and final card, The American Civil Liberties Union writes:
A) "46 PERCENT OF HOMESLESS WOMEN reported that THEY had previously STAYED IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS BECAUSE THEY HAD NOWHERE TO GO."
B) A WOMAN who has experienced domestic violence WILL OFTEN HAVE LITTLE OR NO ACCESS TO MONEY AND VERY FEW FRIENDS OR FAMILY MEMBERS TO RELY ON IF SHE FLEES a violent relationship."
C) "50 percent of U.S. Cities surveyed reported that DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS."
Cross-Apply this to my peers contention of having a chance to escape. Escape, but where to? How with barely any resources or support? There are societal aids that help, but those only go so far, and often they just dont do enough as the person either ends up homeless, or forced to return to the abusive relationship to prevent homelessness. A prisoner in the relationship if you will.
"Even if self-defense justifies lethal force, it's impossible to know whether self-defense was truly necessary or not in the situation. Since every situation is different, applying an overarching moral rule to it just fails entirely."
I do not see how it fails, considering crime investigation has reached a point where many things can be figured out without need to witnesses, etc. Also, as my previous statistics showed there is usually a pattern of violence that can easily be discerned and it can be figured out that the person who acted in self-defense had been repeatedly abused.
"TURN: if self-defense is true, then the abuser is justified in killing the victim when the victim tries to kill the abuser. In other words, the abuser can then claim he was acting in self-defense and kill the abused person and get away with it. This will always outweigh because self-defense thus fails to protect the life of those who are abused."
"If self-defense were true, then any murderer could claim he acted in self-defense and get away with it, relying on complex psychological analysis to prove whether or not they actually felt threatened – analysis that is in no way falsifiable."
These last two essentially state the same thing. That nothing is stopping the aggressor of a situation from claiming self-defense. As I previously stated, there are ways to figure out whether or not self-defense was truly necessary. Also in cases of domestic violence, there is usually a pattern from which it can be discerned that abuse was occurring.
Now for my peers case, in which he essentially states that morality rather than being objective is subjective. If that were the case easy win for me, because subjective means opinion based, I have the opinion that said act in question is morally permissible, therefore it is morally permissible.
I thank Zaradi once more for such an excellent round and look forward to his final round.
Unfortunately, my opponent is conceding far too much evidence of mine to be able to form a coherent case, as well as bringing things in to justify his case that weren't there to begin with. I'll go line-by-line with his refutations.
Now lets start with the deontology link that his case supposedly references to. I'd like to point out that no where in his case was this mentioned. It's a missing internal link in his case. If he wanted to run deontology, he should've posted it in his case. But even if you buy it now that it's been mentioned in the 1AR, deontology commits the falacy of origin. He's claiming that because moral decisions come from human agency, we must value our ability to use human agency. But this is just like saying because we came from bacteria, we must value the preservation of bacteria or that because water comes from the sink, we must value the sink, both of which are entirely non-sensical. But then secondly, he's just not doing enough to refute the negative case that proves morality is subjective, but we'll get to that later.
Next, he brings up four points to explain his Doctrine of Double effect, but all four are flawed:
1: Action must be good
Good is a relative term to use. Good for who? Good for what? Good for how long until it goes bad? He offers no further clarification to this point, and it only lends credence to subjectivity. Also, you can look to the first Nietzsche card that was in my case, which went entirely conceded, that says the same exact thing that I just said above.
2. Good must be intended
It is impossible to determine the true intent of a person. I'd like to ask my opponent: why did I issue this debate? The resolution has already ended competitively, so it cannot be to prepare for a tournament on this topic. To pass time? Maybe. To brush up on old skills? Maybe. My point is that we cannot determine the intent of another person, and thus I can just say I intended to save myself instead of that I intended to kill my abuser. Thus, we cannot judge whether an action was self-defense or not based off of intent.
3: Good cannot come from evil
TURN: If this is true, then we would never be able to kill someone in self-defense, or even fight back. By fighting back, we are causing an increase in suffering for the abuser, which is an evil effect. But the good effect came from it! So under his reasoning, the Doctrine of Double Effect REFUTES self-defense, not endorses it.
4: Must be proportional
Refer back to my Rosen evidence here, evidence that he did not touch in list last speech, as to how not all actions of self-defense are proportional. So at this point, this fails to support self-defense in two different areas.
Next, I have a massive problem with his argument against my first point against self-defense, where he says that lethal force isn't always lethal. This is MASSIVELY abusive, and merits an entirely new argument explaining the proposed rule for this topic (point A), how my opponent violates this rule (point B), why this point makes for better debating (point C), and why he should lose for breaking it (point D). Follow the link below.
And while this is a new argument, allow me to make it because a) this was the first time he clarified that lethal didn't always mean lethal, b) it's an unfair argument and the abuse needs to be checked back and c) my opponent allowed me to use it in the comments section.
He then references to statistics to prove that restraining orders don't work, but I'd like you to look to the SIX arguments I placed against this that went entirely conceded last round. They have easy ways to escape, but just choose not to, thus making self-defense not necessary.
Now he reads an argument that the victims can't leave and/or leaving only harms them. However, this is wrong for a few reasons:
First: This just isn’t true. A victim can always choose to simply walk out the door, psychological impacts aside. Instead of choosing to shoot the abuser in the head in the middle of the night, there is nothing preventing them from simply walking out the door.
Second: TURN: killing the abuser leaves them in a worse place psychologically or economically. They could face retribution from the abuser’s family, wouldn’t be in a better economic situation, and would later regret taking a human life. Thus, affirming only leaves the victim in a worse spot than she was before.
Third: TURN: there is no way to determine in fact whether or not a woman could’ve really left her situation. All domestic violence cases involve an element of “he said, she said”, and it would be incredibly easy for the woman to claim she had no other options, when she really did.
So, thusly, leaving is a much more viable choice than staying, regardless of where they end up or if they have somewhere to go. Moreover, there are plenty of domestic abuse shelters for victims who can go there and be protected from their abusers that are nation-wide, so they will always have a place to go.
Then my opponent tries to group two of my arguments together, but they don't actually say anything close to the same thing. The first one, the turn, applies specifically to domestic abuse where the victim would be killed by the abuser IN SELF-DEFENSE when the victim attempted to kill the abuser. Under the affirmative case, this would be entirely justified, since it was necessary for him to protect himself and his human agency, but yet he's claiming it suddenly doesn't work! This is a perfectly valid turn, so self-defense negates.
And, again, he entirely dropped the Rosen evidence, which shows that lethal force doesn't ever fall under self-defense. He conceded this, so even if he's winning that self-defense is true and good, there's literally no link between it and using lethal force, so the argument is either a) dropped or b) voted in the negative's favor.
My opponent then, against my case, probably makes his most fatal error by agreeing that morality is subjective and in his opinion it's permissible. Refer back to the Joyce evidence at the top of my case that says specifically if moral skepticism is true, then NOTHING CAN BE MORALLY PERMISSIBLE. This is the flat-out easiest place to vote con in this debate since he a) dropped the Joyce evidence and b) failed to actually refute the negative case.
So as the debate starts to come to a close, there's a few different layers to the debate going on, and all of them are being won by the con:
1. Topicality Shell: Since he's violating the topicality shell, refer to the reasons why the topicality rule is good for debate and why he should lose for breaking it. Even if he refutes this, this isn't sufficient for the pro to win off of.
2. The Negative case: He basically conceded that skepticism was true, in which Joyce says that if skepticism is true, then nothing can be morally permissible. This means that the resolution is automatically negated. But even if he's winning off of this layer, it's still not sufficient for him to win off of.
3. Turns to the AC: Look to the negative case where I define to negate as to deny the truth of. So as long as I'm disproving the pro case, that's sufficient for a con win.
If I'm winning off of any layer of this debate, you vote con. My opponent MUST BE WINNING in every single layer of the debate in order to win this debate. He clearly isn't, so you vote con pretty easily.
Buddamoose forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|